I thought about this some more while performing various acts of personal hygiene[1], and I think I can state my opinion more clearly.
On Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 11:00:46AM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote: > On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 11:40:28PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > Because the Foo manual still exists as an individually copyrighted work. > > > > These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. > > > > *** EMPHASIS ADDED *** > > If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the > > Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and > > separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, > > do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as > > separate works. > > ********************** > > But look at the _next_ paragraph: > > > But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole > > which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the > > whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions > > for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each > > and every part regardless of who wrote it. I think that the GPL uses these paragraphs to distinguish between its permissions and its restrictions, and that it says that its restrictions do not apply to incorporated other works, but that its permissions do always apply. (Of course this is a simplification; refer to the original text for the non-simplified version :-) This works fine for the MIT license, which already grants the same permissions. It does not work fine for the hypothetical clause that will allow DFCL-through-GPL tunneling, because that clause would restrict certain things that the GPL grants permission for. If that permission cannot be granted, then the GPL cannot be applied. Richard Braakman [1] I bet you wouldn't like to know. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
