Re: [Fsfe-uk] Re: Freedom to take freedom

[Dave Crossland]

On 22/01/2008, Alex Hudson <address@hidden> wrote:
> >
> > There is no way to satisfy both GPLv2 and the addition, so there is no
> > permission to distribute.
>
> I don't think it can be read that way. The GPLv2 only talks about
> 'further restrictions' - it doesn't say that the license you get from
> the licensor is the GPL and only the GPL; it's not, it's the license
> that the author put on the work (which is GPL+bits)

If the bits are additional permissions - like a poor man's LGPL, used
by GNU Classpath and so on - that is fine.

If the bits are additional restrictions - like Red Hats fonts - that
is a deal killer, because, as you clearly say,

> The added clauses by the licensor are not severable from the rest of the
> license - although "GPL + bits" is a fine way to describe the license,
> it's a single set of terms and conditions. It's not "distribute via GPL,
> but then tack on these extra bits every time", it's "distribute via GPL
> +bits".

And section 6 of GPLv2 says

"You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients'
exercise of the rights granted herein."

Which means that, as MJ says,

> > There is no way to satisfy both GPLv2 and the addition, so there is no
> > permission to distribute.

-- 
Regards,
Dave