[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > So then I guess I _can_ do the following? Yay!: > > 1. Make non-GPL program. > > 2. Combine a little bit of someone else's GPL program. > > 3. Release the _combined work_ under GPL. > > 4. Take a bit of my _original work_ from the *original* > part of said combined work and put it in another > original work, this time one with NObody else's code > in it, > > 5. Release that closed-source and non-GPL as heck. > > Am I right?
I'd say so. > Oh so you have to work it out with them, right? (if I want a non- > GPL licensing scheme) Now, does this have and bearing on what I > can do with my original works? Can I let someone use _my own_ > 100% original code in their works WITHOUT demanding them to give > me their own code for my use? I should be able to, considering > those are _my original works_ and I can do WHATEVER I PLEASE > WITH THEM since *I* made them! Am I right? Nobody is required to hand out any source code unless he is distributing binaries, and then he needs to provide source code only to those parties receiving the binaries (there is one exception, namely if one makes use of the "written offer" option which nobody I know ever did). > Aha! Thank you for confirming me. I've uncovered it! The "evil > motive" of the GPL! Since they believe that's the way software > should be, then they want ultimately _ALL_ software to be this way. I don't see anything evil in that motive. > The point is that there is a third view here, and it's the one I > espouse: Software should be distributed the way the author chooses, Well, so why do you protest against distributing GPL software the way the author chooses? As part of GPLed projects? > provided it is reasonable. That last bit -- "provided it's > reasonable" -- excludes BOTH views, for the first nobody can make a > reasonable profit to sustain themselves, essentially killing the > software industry, for the second they are just trying to hoard all > the money for themselves, ie. greed, which I think is > wrong. Last time I looked, RedHat was profitable, Novell was in business, Sun released OpenSolaris, IBM was turning a heck of a profit with Linux and so on and so on. Seems like the GPL is doing a lousy job of prohibiting profits and killing the software industry. > Of course, and I have never denied this. I'm debating what I > consider a potential problem/unfairness/dracionianness/whatever the > heck it is with the GPL license system. It is not a problem, it is designed to do exactly that. > EEK!!!! Everyone's been saying that I've got all rights to MY > ORIGINAL CODE but I don't in this case! This is NOT fair AT ALL. You mean, _you_ should be allowed to ignore the wished of the authors of GPLed software, so that _you_ can use their stuff the way _you_ want, and that is supposed to be FAIR? > It IS a toll. So what is unfair about a toll? _You_ want to be able to ask your tolls, but you are not prepared to let others ask theirs? > I've rendered all that hard-worked original code worthless for > anything but GPL projects! I'm right!!! Or am I? What about the hard-worked original GPL code? Is that supposed to be free for you to take? Leave the hard-worked original GPL code alone, and everybody will leave your hard-worked original code alone, too. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
