Hi. I notice this post apparently fell on deaf ears, and I'd like to make it more visible as I'm wondering if I finally figured out the whole GNU License thing:
--- > Imaging for a second that you have a work, to which you add some > non-free code. A user can no longer change the work as a whole, since > parts of it are not free. The GPL sees that an evil part cannot do > such things. It simply does not make anything free, it just sees that > the a free program stays free. Oh, becuase the modified program (even if the vast majority of said "modified" program's code is not GPL to begin with -- it's still considered a "modified" program) cannot then be free, only the original program, however the modified program is still considered a version of the original and therefore still possesses the attribute of being free if it still has any part of the original left, even if 99.99% of it's code has been totally changed and expanded as to be unrecognizable -- that 0.01% still means it is the GPL program. Because the incorporation of GPL code _can_ be viewed as a modification of the original if we imagine the process not as taking a piece from the GPL program and *adding* it to our original work, but instead as *removing* all code except what we want to use *from the GPL program*, and then adding in all our *original* work, even if this would be quite a stretch of the word "modify" in colloquial terms, which often does not mean a change to the majority of something so as to make it nigh indistinguishable. However, since we are discussing *source code* not functionality, Even if the functionality and outward appearance of the program is *totally* different from the GPL one if it still includes GPL code "left over" *in the source code* it is still a modified version. It is only considered a new program when *zero* GPL code remains and hence the GPL no longer covers it (provided we haven't released the program already -- we're talking about during it's creation here.), as it is then totally, completely ours (ie. 100% original). --- Another post had this: --- > I think that's a stretch. Most of the folks here have been using the > phrase "to ensure that free code remains free". I hear your thinking > that if you start with a free component A and extend it to create a > blended component A+B, where B is proprietary, that the blended > component has no impact on the "freeness" of A. But it does. A+B can be > structured so that it both improves upon A and is incompatible with A. > It's a tactic called embrace and extend. Now you have A+B, which doesn't > have the same rights as A. You must purchase B. You cannot modify/extend or > redistribute B. You cannot fix B. A+B is now non free even though A is > free. And A can easily be locked out of the usage loop by A+B. Why would one have to purchase B? A still retains it's original functionality without B. You'd only need to purchase B if A was somehow made dependent on B, which it is not. What if it _is_ compatible with A, then what? > But B cannot exist without A. So what has happened is that an originally > free system has now been converted into a non free one. So therefore, B+A is not free, even though A is free and usable independently of B. But since B+A contains A then A has been made not free, even if A is distributed independently for free, since a _version of A_ (namely that formed by A+B) is _not_ free anymore. And only _one_ unfree version even if A is still freely available is a hindrance to the freedom (because *A+B* as a _single entity_ *regardless* of how it is distributed is _not_ free). Is my understanding here correct? > The GPL points out that A+B is a derivative of A. It says that A+B must > have the same rights as A. So A+B needs to be GPLed. > And that's what "to ensure that free code remains free" means. Because A+B is intrinsically free. The "free code that remains free" is A+B, not just A. A+B has an intrinsic, inseparable attribute of freedom by definition. > Now to appease Alfred, B's author can in fact release B under any > license he/she sees fit. It's up to the author of A to call the > copyright violation of the GPL out to the author of B and work something > out. A judge can enjoin B's author from distrubuting the collective > work, or B separately, though the judge cannot force B's author to GPL > B. Is that enough legalese? So then even if A+B is released under GPL, a pure B copy, that perhaps included an original component to replace the functionality that A provides, or just without said functionality, can still be released under a different license. > End the end what you want is too much of a slipperly slope. The only > reason not to release B under the GPL is to keep downstream developers > and users from having the same rights that B's author had to A. That > diminishes the overall freeness of the system A+B. Oh, of the _system_. So the _system_ A+B is free from it's creation, and what GPL is "keeping free" is that system, since from creation it was free. --- So, are any of these right? Did I finally get the drift? Were my understandings finally corrrect at last? _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss