On May 26, 1:32 pm, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > mike3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > So, are any of these right? Did I finally get the drift? Were my > > understandings finally corrrect at last? > > No. The problem is that the GPLed program is licensed to you under > conditions. If you don't heed the conditions, you don't gain the > right to redistribute the GPLed code. The conditions include that you > must not make the software part of something licensed differently. >
I already know this. But have I understood the _rationale_ for _why_ it is that way, for WHY the conditions are the way they are? That's what I am asking, and nobody seems to see this. <snip stuff that, while informative, doesn't really address what I am asking about> > There are laws (and those differ from countries) which state when you > are no longer creating independent collections or aggregations, and > when the resulting work has a form that requires specific permission > from the copyright holder, permission that is not implied in the legal > purchase of a single copy. > > So that is the borderline where the GPL claims to be effective, the > borderline which was originally more or less intended to protect > artistic integrity. > > In short: the GPL tries to do as much as it can to promote software > under the constraints that mass redistribution of unmodified GPLed > software should remain permitted without requiring contractual > restrictions. > > In spite of its detractors, it does a pretty good job with that. > So then *what is the point* of specifically requiring the derivative works to be made totally free, including the parts of code that did not originate from the GPL program? Why must _those parts_ also be distributed free, if the point is just to keep the GPL program free? > -- > 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
