"Rickard �berg" wrote:
> Ole Husgaard wrote:
> > The reason is: If is is GPL and can stand on its own,
> > we are free to aggregate, as GPL places no restriction
> > on "mere aggregation".
>
> You do the same mistake as Marc IMHO. The GPL doesn't say "mere
> aggregation". It says "mere aggregation on a disk storage". BIG HUGE
> difference.
The precise wording is: "In addition, mere aggregation of another
work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work
based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution
medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this
License.". Please note that it does not say "on a disk storage",
it says "on a volume of a storage or distribution medium".
So distributing GPL and non-GPL software on the same CDROM
is not a problem. I think we agree on that.
What is interesting is the meaning of "distribution medium".
The Internet is clearly a "distribution medium", so it is
clear that the GPL allows GPL software being distributed on
the Internet even if the Internet is also used for distributing
non-GPL software.
Some (most?) Linux distributors allow people to download CDROM
images or CDROM zipfiles, even if some of the files on the CDROM
are non-GPL. I have seen this being called "a distribution of
distributions", and GPL allows it due to the sentense quoted
above. It is, however, required that the GPL and non-GPL
software be independent, or it would not be _mere_ aggregation.
> I.e. if you put several *completely disconnected* Programs
> on a CD, then those Programs do not have to be GPL just because one of
> them are. In our case, I cannot see how it would fall under "mere
> aggregation on a disk storage". I just don't.
No, it falls under "mere aggregation on a distribution medium".
One (IMO) important requirement for qualifying for "distribution
medium" is that a copy must be taken off the medium before being
usable. If the Internet is the distribution medium, a copy must
be downloaded to a local computer. If the distribution medium is
a zipfile, the zipfile must be unzipped first.
> > > How many want GPL (for whatever reason) and how many would be ok with
> > > APL (or similar, again for whatever reason)?
> >
> > I think that licences like BSD license and APL allow
> > too much.
>
> Such as?
I have a few, but let me give you one of the possible scenarios
I fear most:
In the (I hope) no so far future jBoss has taken over the world,
and people are happy. But someone is _not_ happy: The Dark Force.
They used to feed on people that really had no choice, but now
people can get a better product for free. At the Dark Force
something must be done: They are fat, but without food they might
cease to exist.
What do they do? They take our baby jBoss, clones it, change the
clone a bit and has now created Darkened jBoss!
Because they are still fat they can now start a big marketing
campaign telling people that Darkened jBoss is the only right way
to go and that they have discovered a lot of bad bugs in plain
jBoss that may may cause dizzyness if they use anything but
Darkened jBoss. Now the Dark Force can start feeding as the
people are afraid of getting dizzy.
What can we do about it? We ask the Dark Force: "Which bugs are
you talking about?", but the Dark Force doesn't want to tell us.
We try to educate people, but the marketing budget of the Dark
Force keeps getting bigger as more scared people go with the Dark
Force. We try to find out how Darkened jBoss was changed, but the
Dark Force does not release sources.
We can do nothing until we find the right weapon: Copyright law!
But this weapon can really only be used if we have the right
license. And we need the right license _before_ the Dark Force
starts playing their tricks. The restrictions in our license is
what makes our weapon so powerful.
If the license requires that the sources for modifications must
be made available, we can use our weapon to find out how they
created Darkened jBoss. My guess is they didn't fix any bugs,
but added some hooks to get those poor people hooked.
GPL requires this, but the BSD license doesn't.
If the license requires that modifications must be made available
under the original license, The Dark Force cannot use Darkened
jBoss to feed on people. Scared people could still go with
Darkened jBoss, but they would take it for free and the Dark
Force will starve and eventually cease to exist.
GPL requires this, but the BSD license doesn't.
Couldn't help putting it this way. Hope you get my point.
I'm not familiar with the APL, but I think it is similar to
the BSD license on these two points.
Best Regards,
Ole Husgaard.
