On May 24, 1:52 am, "Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > But the free software is the GPL program -- how does it > > protect free software by requiring that the non-GPL one become > > GPL as well? The free software is only the GPL program -- > > which can function on it's own, unlike the non-GPL program, > > and if all sources to said GPL program are divulged under GPL, > > then how is it made any less free? It isn't!!! > > > > The end result is no longer free, since users are now prohibited > > from running, studying, improving and distributing the non-free > > program. The GPL sees that this will never happen, and users are > > always guaranteed to always be free. > > The _entire_ non-free program, of course -- but such a distribution > would still keep the originally free code free. > > If the originally free code is linked to a propietery program, then > the result is not free. The GPL sees that this will never happen. >
But the originally free code is still made free. So I'm vindicated in my understanding: It is designed to not only keep the original free code free, but to make more code free. > > So, it's to create *more* free code, right? > > > > It keeps code free, you are not required to accept the GPL. > > But why do I have to release all of *my* code along with the GPLed > stuff? > > Because you agreed to it, you are free not to agree to do so, but then > nothing gives you the right to distribute the GPLed program. Please > read the GPL, it is very clear. I know, but the thing I'm going after is the reasonableness, rationale, or logic behind the license. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
