On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 09:47:57AM -0500, Paul Smith wrote: > %% Dominik Vogt <fvwm-workers@fvwm.org> writes: > > >> There is absolutely no possible way a license with clauses such as the > >> ones you described previously can coexist with GPL'd code, no matter how > >> carefully crafted or how much time is spent on it. > > dv> Well, maybe there is. The GPL covers only the right to > dv> distribute, modify and copy the software: > > dv> Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not > dv> covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of > dv> running the Program is not restricted, ... > > dv> Strictly speaking, the GPL forgets to grant anybody the right of > dv> using the software. So, as long as I do not care about whether > dv> the source code or binaries are copied, modified or distributed, I > dv> think I can still restrict running it. > > I don't think this is the case. The key point is not whether you can > restrict things that the GPL doesn't address, it's whether the resulting > license is compatible with the GPL. > > The relevant section is this: > > b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in > whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any > part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third > parties under the terms of this License. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > And this: > > 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. > > It must be entirely released under the GPL itself, or it doesn't meet > the legal criteria.
Yes, I agree with that analysis. The crucial point is that the GPL and a license to run a software are orthogonal, as stated by the passage I quoted. Since running the software is definitely an "activity other than copying, distribution and modification" it is "outside its [the GPL's] scope". And if it's outside the GPL's scope it can not violate the GPL. By the way, the fvwm license already violates the GPL by restricting the right to modify the sources: Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its documentation for any purpose and without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice appear in all copies and that both that copyright notice and this permission notice appear in supporting documentation (note the explicit permission to use fvwm - which can be easily circumvented by deriving a new window manager from fvwm). Bye Dominik ^_^ ^_^ -- Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.fvwm.org/>. To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To report problems, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
