On May 24, 1:52 pm, "Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On May 24, 2:01 am, "Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Asked and answered. Your code does not function without the GPL > > > code in this scenario. Therefore it's a derivative of the GPL > > > code. So your code must also be distributed under the GPL. > > > > > > The disconnect that happens in this discussion everytime it comes > > > up (which BTW is about every other day) is thinking that if you > > > add something to the existing collective of code, that somehow > > > that it's not a part of that collective. > > > > But it seems that some GNUtians just keep saying "it only keeps > > stuff that was already free, free", even though it does not -- it > > makes _more_ code free. > > > > Again, the GPL does not create anything. You as the copyright holder > > can only license something under a license, the GPL cannot. The GPL > > simply sees that free code stays free, nothing more, nothing less. > > Nobody can force you to licnese your work on the GPL, not even a > > judge. > > I did not say it "created" anything. I said it "made code > free". That means it causes code to acquire the status of being > free, not creating new code, at least not directly. It cause the > code of whatever project the GPLed code was used in to become free. > > It does not _cause_ anything, it cannot. And "make" means "create". >
Well it requires one to make their code free if they want to use the free code. How about that? That's what I have been trying to say! > > And please do not call people names, it is rude. > > You mean the "GNUtian" thing? Well, alright, I'll drop it. > > Thank you. > You're welcome. > > To keep things free, again, this was answered as well before. > > That does not jive! It is not simply "keeping" things free -- it is > causing more things to become free. > > It doesn't cause anything. A judge cannot force you to make your > software free software, neither can a license. > You're interpreting me too literally. > I do not understand how requiring ADDITIONAL code be released > if one wants to use the "free" code is *just* "keeping" code free -- > does not the quantity of free code in the world then increase? > > Because the resulting work is a deriviate work of a free program. > > Please, this has been explained to you several times over a course of > a week. Now you are just wasting peoples time by being dense. > I know but it DOES NOT MAKE SENSE. See below. > If the only point is to keep code free, why demand that *additional* > code be made free if one agrees to use the free code? > > To keep code free. If you take (unspecified license) work A and > non-free work B to create C, then C is not free, neither is A. The > GPL sees that A, in all its dependencies remains free. How is A still not free even if A is released under a free license by the same person who authored C while C is not? A does not depend on B, B depends on A, by the way. Maybe answering _that_ question could help clear up the misunderstanding. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
