> > The GPL specifically disallows creation of copies with changes -- no > > matter how functional -- which include restrictions on the rights of > > other users of derivatives.
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 07:53:06PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > And that specifically was not what you were describing. > > Your literal words were: > > > > > So, in essence, you think that the DFSG says we must disallow the > > > > distribution of gcc if its license prevents you distributing copies > > > > which > > > > have been functionally modified to better integrate with microsoft's > > > > palladium? > > I do not see any connection at all between that and "restrictions on > the rights of other users of derivates". People without proper palladium licenses would not have the rights required by the gpl. > > > With the DFSG we promise to our users that they can take any software > > > in main and modify it for any purpose - and distribute such modified > > > version under the same license as the software they started out > > > with. "Any purpose" here includes modifications that lets it work with > > > "microsoft's palladium", whatever this is. > > > We do not promise this. > > Yes, we do. That's the fundamental role of the Debian Free Software > Guidelines. If you do not understand this, we have no common basis for > communicating. Quote the relevant text, please. > > Feel free to quote the promise to me if you disagree. > > Read the Social Contract: "Debian will remain 100% free". That is a > promise, and the contents of that promise includes what I wrote. I disagree. 100% free means that we aren't going to be distributing free software which depends on non-free software. 100% free does not mean that we will require that all of our free software be convertable into non-free software. > > As an aside, Microsoft's Palladium is currently a mix of software and > > hardware vaporware, where some claims about its feature set appear to > > mean that free software would be impossible to use in that environment. > > Aha. However, if somebody manages to modify gcc such that it can > nevertheless be used in that environment, then it is perfectly legal > to distribute the modified gcc under the same terms as gcc itself. Not if this means that making copies of the derived work is forbidden by the gpl. -- Raul
