Peter S Galbraith writes: > Seth David Schoen wrote: > > > Henning Makholm writes: > > > > > Caspian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > > > I'd just like to state that if anyone out there is interested in making > > > > a > > > > completely, utterly free software GNU/Linux dist, with a license that > > > > prohibits putzen like those at Corel from pulling the sort of nonsense > > > > they've been pulling, > > > > > > Note that you won't be able to include any GPLed software in your > > > distribution if you want to make restrictions about how and when > > > other people or corporations are allowed to redistribute it. > > > > Where does the GPL say that? I can give you several examples of > > distributors > > who have made this their regular practice. > > ? > > If you don't own the code that is GPLed, you can't relicense it > under a different license. How could you then use `a license > that prohibits putzen like those at Corel from pulling the sort > of nonsense they've been pulling' if the GPL allows it?
Depends on how that's accomplished. If it's a license for the entire distribution as a whole, it should be possible. That's what I was assuming: a EULA for the distribution. If it's a matter of relicensing GPLed code to forbid the use of EULAs, at all, then no, it's presumably not allowed. :-) -- Seth David Schoen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | And do not say, I will study when I Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure; for perhaps you will down: http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF) | not have leisure. -- Pirke Avot 2:5
