Re: GNU License Again but this time a different question
What happens if I get some GPL code, and read it to learn something about how to solve some stumbling block with something I can't seem to figure out how to program, then used the knowledge gained to write my own piece of code? The same thing as would have happened had read it in a book: you become educated. Copyright applies to expression, not ideas. It also applies to copying, since nothing was copied, then it doesn't fall under copyright. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU License Again but this time a different question
On Jun 5, 4:12 am, Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What happens if I get some GPL code, and read it to learn something about how to solve some stumbling block with something I can't seem to figure out how to program, then used the knowledge gained to write my own piece of code? The same thing as would have happened had read it in a book: you become educated. Copyright applies to expression, not ideas. It also applies to copying, since nothing was copied, then it doesn't fall under copyright. Alright. Thanks for all the answers, everyone. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU License Again but this time a different question
mike3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yes, yet another GNU License question, but this time it's different. What happens if I get some GPL code, and read it to learn something about how to solve some stumbling block with something I can't seem to figure out how to program, then used the knowledge gained to write my own piece of code? Do I have to GPL that piece of code and/or any and all other programs built around it? It depends. Copyright covers _expressions_. An algorithm is not covered by copyright, but its expression is. So it depends on whether you reproduce the _structure_ of the algorithm (which is not covered by copyright) or its expression (for example, by reproducing idioms particular to the style of the writer). Telling those two apart is not always easy, so large companies implement cleanroom techniques for some of that: one team dissembles the original code and writes down a _description_ of what it does. Another team then writes code to fit the description. The description is kept around as proof: it should be free from idioms and other things particular to a particular _phrasing_ of the algorithm. One problem is that a particular expression is more or less the _natural_ expression for some algorithm. Now if people come up with the same words _independently_, they have the respective copyright for their own words. This is different from patents: it does not matter with patents whether you came up with some idea independently: if you don't have a prior publication or patent application to point to, your idea is barred to your own use. So for patents, the cleanroom technique is useless. -- 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
Re: GNU License Again but this time a different question
mike3 writes: What happens if I get some GPL code, and read it to learn something about how to solve some stumbling block with something I can't seem to figure out how to program, then used the knowledge gained to write my own piece of code? The same thing as would have happened had read it in a book: you become educated. Copyright applies to expression, not ideas. Do I have to GPL that piece of code and/or any and all other programs built around it? If you had gained the same knowledge by reading a book published by Microsoft Press would you have to assign the copyright to Microsoft? Of course not! -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU License, Again
David Kastrup wrote: [...] Anyway, you are aware that a software license does not govern a work, but a transaction transferring a particular copy? Software is literary work. A copyright licensee governs rights (modulo limitations) regarding (protected elements in) work. One doesn't need to be an owner of a copy in order to become a party to a copyright license. One can reproduce works (and do other things reserved to copyright owners like for example public performance) from brain's memory. That is the reason that the same software can be licensed under different licenses, More bullshit. Those are simply different contracts (offers) all governing rights in the same work. A would-be licensee simply has a choice to become a party to any of those license contracts that the work is licensed under. and that passing on a copy is (when using the default provisions of copyright law) only permissable when one does not retain a copy for one's own use. One can of course retain copies made pursuant to copyright license grant (not those additional copies made under 17 USC 117). regards, alexander. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU License, Again
none Byron Jeff wrote: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: none Byron Jeff wrote: [...] Good. Do you see that the extended code is a derivative of the original GPL code now? SCO/GNU postulatus 101. http://www.byte.com/documents/s=8276/byt1055784622054/0616_marshall.html (SCO Owns Your Computer ... All Your Base Are Belong To Us) That's apples and gorillas sir. The article you quote states that SCO thinks that any original code that has even been developed for Unix systems is a derivative and belongs to them. That far extends beyond the concept that if you take GPL code and extend that code, that the extension is a derivative. Read it again. quote GPL GPL has the same derivative rights concept [as UNIX], according to Sontag... /quote Not true. If you write an original piece of code that runs on a Linux system, There are no GPL rights imposed upon it. Similarly, SCO doesn't claim that code which runs on UNIX system belongs to SCO. OTOH if you take a piece of GPL codebase and extend it, that's a whole different matter. Yeah, even if an extension is 100% original work and doesn't contain any protected elements from GPL'd work you purport it extends? Stop being utter cretin, none Byron Jeff. regards, alexander. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU License, Again
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: none Byron Jeff wrote: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: none Byron Jeff wrote: [...] Good. Do you see that the extended code is a derivative of the original GPL code now? SCO/GNU postulatus 101. http://www.byte.com/documents/s=8276/byt1055784622054/0616_marshall.html (SCO Owns Your Computer ... All Your Base Are Belong To Us) That's apples and gorillas sir. The article you quote states that SCO thinks that any original code that has even been developed for Unix systems is a derivative and belongs to them. That far extends beyond the concept that if you take GPL code and extend that code, that the extension is a derivative. Read it again. I did. Same opinion as the first time. The only differences are that SCO is arguing a contractual link. In addition they are arguing that 'licenses that covered all methods and concepts of operating systems' belongs to them. The GPL makes no such claims. quote GPL GPL has the same derivative rights concept [as UNIX], according to Sontag... /quote Not true. If you write an original piece of code that runs on a Linux system, There are no GPL rights imposed upon it. Similarly, SCO doesn't claim that code which runs on UNIX system belongs to SCO. SCO claims that original code that behaves like Unix belongs to them. That it's a derivative due to concept, not an actual code linkage. OTOH if you take a piece of GPL codebase and extend it, that's a whole different matter. Yeah, even if an extension is 100% original work and doesn't contain any protected elements from GPL'd work you purport it extends? If you write a 100% code fragment that does not operate without the GPL code base? How can that not be a derivative work? You're right back to Mike's original argument that if you physically separate two pieces of code, then there cannot be a derivitive relationship between the two. If the new code doesn't function without the old code, then it's a derivitive work. The distribution of that work is covered by the license of the original work. But that's completely different then if you rewrite the GPL code base and relicense that. That's your original work, and you can do what you like with it. SCO was (note this article is dated 4 years ago) arguing that since you wrote original code using a concept licensed by them, that your code belongs to them. I liken it to emplyment contracts that states that all your products generated under a company's employ, whether or not you used company resources and time, and whether or not it has anything to do with the actual company belongs to them. There's no linkage if its a product that has nothing to do with the company, and was developed on the employee's own time using the employee's own equipment. The analogy from the GPL would be an employee using the company systems and company time to extend the company product, then having the employee argue that since it's their original work, that the company has no say so in the distribution of that extended work. Apples and gorillas, just like I said before. Stop being utter cretin, none Byron Jeff. Now why do you have to resort to insults? Do you really think that's going to endear someone to your cause? It really makes you look silly. I would advise that you keep your insults in your pocket and continue to try to argue the merits. BAJ ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU License, Again
none Byron Jeff wrote: [...] I did. Same opinion as the first time. The only differences are that SCO is arguing a contractual link. In addition they are arguing that 'licenses that covered all methods and concepts of operating systems' belongs to them. Their claim regarding methods and concepts is about disclosures such as negative know-how irrespective of embodiments (if any) in code. [...] OTOH if you take a piece of GPL codebase and extend it, that's a whole different matter. Yeah, even if an extension is 100% original work and doesn't contain any protected elements from GPL'd work you purport it extends? If you write a 100% code fragment that does not operate without the GPL code base? Whether it can or can not operate without some other code is totally irrelevant. Software is protected as LITERARY work modulo AFC filtering. How can that not be a derivative work? Easy. It doesn't contain any protected elements from the GPL'd work. Stop being utter cretin, none Byron Jeff. regards, alexander. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU License, Again
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] Anyway, you are aware that a software license does not govern a work, but a transaction transferring a particular copy? Software is literary work. A copyright licensee governs rights (modulo limitations) regarding (protected elements in) work. One doesn't need to be an owner of a copy in order to become a party to a copyright license. One can reproduce works (and do other things reserved to copyright owners like for example public performance) from brain's memory. Copyright does not provide a license for doing so. The decisive factor here is _not_ the work, but rather the _copying_ process through the brains memory. As an example, in the software world, a cleanroom process is often employed where one team assembles a description of software, and another, different one, implements from that description. Copyright is granted for the output of a creative process, and for the resulting representation. If that cleanroom process happens to reproduce the same structures/algorithms/idioms by _chance_, then the _identical_ work is not restricted by copyright. So it is clear that copyright is, indeed, bound to actual copies of a work, copies that save time and work for a creative process leading to a unique expression. Even though these copies might happen through memory. That is the reason that the same software can be licensed under different licenses, More bullshit. Those are simply different contracts (offers) all governing rights in the same work. Where is the contradiction? A would-be licensee simply has a choice to become a party to any of those license contracts that the work is licensed under. Uh no. I was not talking about multiple-license models where the licensee can freely choose. You can, for example, license the same software binary-only for a fixed price, GPL for a larger price, and BSD-licensed for an even larger price. Those are different products. There are a few outlets that do multiple licensings in similar style. -- 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
Re: GNU License, Again
mike3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So the _goal_ is to ultimately get all software free, since said freedom is considered a vital right under the GNU philosophy (if not _the_ core right of the GNU philosophy). Actually, all software would be unnecessary: the universe of proprietary software is full of reinventions of the wheel because people can't just reuse software. For example, there are dozens of proprietary compilers around, but there is not much of an alternative to GCC among the free compilers. While it would be interesting to study the other compilers, the actual development is usually ok consolidating on a single product. Also, the GPL does not demand that you redistribute derivative software. You can keep it private if you like. What the GPL is concerned with is just software that actually makes it into circulation. Hence the reason for requiring that any distribution of derivatives to have their full source code released under the GPL _in toto_, not just the GPL pars -- so that new code then enters the pool of free software and therefore contributes to the freedom of all users. I always thought this was what it was, it's just that this guy kept on going about how it only keeps GPL stuff free, essentially in denial of the fact it also helps catalyze the growth of the free software pool, which is more than just keeping GPL stuff free as it entails that additional free code is released. Well, you have seen Alfred interpret the passages from Richard I cited, so you should have a pretty good idea how to interpret his words. -- 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
Re: GNU License, Again
So Richard talks explicitly about the _goal_ of the GPL, and he does this immediately before listing a number of projects that set out to create proprietary projects, and then were forced by their use of GPLed software to license them under the GPL. So the _goal_ is to ultimately get all software free, since said freedom is considered a vital right under the GNU philosophy (if not _the_ core right of the GNU philosophy). That is the goal of the GNU project and the FSF, but not of the GNU GPL. Hence the reason for requiring that any distribution of derivatives to have their full source code released under the GPL _in toto_, not just the GPL pars -- so that new code then enters the pool of free software and therefore contributes to the freedom of all users. Again, no, it is to keep said software free. The GPL does not require you to distribute; if it did, you'd have a point, but it doesn't. If the goal of the GNU GPL was to create a larger pool of free software, then the GNU GPL would require _all_ modifications to become public, but it doesn't, you are not required to distribute your hacks. So I guess I'm in good company too. It seems that you, like David, are only capable of hostility, and must resort to name calling, attacks, strawmen, and what not. Clearly, if you have to resort to such things, then you are not in good company. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU License, Again
You also like David, confuse goal with end result. Yes, the end result of the GPL does add more free code, since one way to comply is to release the code under the GPL. But this is is not the goal, the goal is simply to keep free code free, nothing more, nothing less. You are not required to release your modifications to a GPL program after all, you can keep them to yourself. And please refrain from resorting to name calling. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU License, Again
Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So Richard talks explicitly about the _goal_ of the GPL, and he does this immediately before listing a number of projects that set out to create proprietary projects, and then were forced by their use of GPLed software to license them under the GPL. So the _goal_ is to ultimately get all software free, since said freedom is considered a vital right under the GNU philosophy (if not _the_ core right of the GNU philosophy). That is the goal of the GNU project and the FSF, but not of the GNU GPL. So the GNU GPL has been written by a goal different from the goals of the GNU project and the FSF. Fascinating. Hence the reason for requiring that any distribution of derivatives to have their full source code released under the GPL _in toto_, not just the GPL pars -- so that new code then enters the pool of free software and therefore contributes to the freedom of all users. Again, no, it is to keep said software free. The GPL does not require you to distribute; if it did, you'd have a point, but it doesn't. If the goal of the GNU GPL was to create a larger pool of free software, then the GNU GPL would require _all_ modifications to become public, but it doesn't, you are not required to distribute your hacks. Care to explain why the GPL preamble states: Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things. How can new free programs be meant to refer only to existing free programs? So I guess I'm in good company too. It seems that you, like David, are only capable of hostility, and must resort to name calling, attacks, strawmen, and what not. Clearly, if you have to resort to such things, then you are not in good company. You are confusing disagreement with hostility, name calling, attacks, strawmen and what not. That one can't see your writings about the GPL's goals coincide at all with the statements in the GPL itself, in the FSF's publications and in Stallman's articles about them as well as with the opinions of other GNU maintainers and developers, does not constitute any of those things you are lavishly labelling people with. -- 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
Re: GNU License, Again
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So Richard talks explicitly about the _goal_ of the GPL, and he does this immediately before listing a number of projects that set out to create proprietary projects, and then were forced by their use of GPLed software to license them under the GPL. So the _goal_ is to ultimately get all software free, since said freedom is considered a vital right under the GNU philosophy (if not _the_ core right of the GNU philosophy). That is the goal of the GNU project and the FSF, but not of the GNU GPL. I find it absolutely amazing that you can think that the explicitly developed product of an individual and an organization dedicated the development of a completely free software pool would develop a product that does not in fact promte that goal. Hence the reason for requiring that any distribution of derivatives to have their full source code released under the GPL _in toto_, not just the GPL pars -- so that new code then enters the pool of free software and therefore contributes to the freedom of all users. Again, no, it is to keep said software free. The GPL does not require you to distribute; if it did, you'd have a point, but it doesn't. If the goal of the GNU GPL was to create a larger pool of free software, then the GNU GPL would require _all_ modifications to become public, but it doesn't, you are not required to distribute your hacks. So you believe that's not the goal of the GPL simply because the miniscule percentage of code that's never distributed isn't required to be distributed? You're kidding right? BAJ ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU License, Again
So the GNU GPL has been written by a goal different from the goals of the GNU project and the FSF. Fascinating. The GNU GPL is a legal document, it cannot insist on everything. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things. How can new free programs be meant to refer only to existing free programs? David, reread that sentence, it talks about using the GNU GPL in other free software programs. It is about compatibility with other free licenses. Say the Modified BSD license. Not about making non-free software free. That one can't see your writings about the GPL's goals coincide at all with the statements in the GPL itself, in the FSF's publications and in Stallman's articles about them as well as with the opinions of other GNU maintainers and developers, does not constitute any of those things you are lavishly labelling people with. They coincide with the statements of GPL, the FSF, the GNU project and of RMS. You are simply misreading things on purpose, this is not a new side from you. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU License, Again
Again, no, it is to keep said software free. The GPL does not require you to distribute; if it did, you'd have a point, but it doesn't. If the goal of the GNU GPL was to create a larger pool of free software, then the GNU GPL would require _all_ modifications to become public, but it doesn't, you are not required to distribute your hacks. So you believe that's not the goal of the GPL simply because the miniscule percentage of code that's never distributed isn't required to be distributed? No, because the GNU GPL says so, so do all the wonderful essays on www.gnu.org. I suggest that you read them. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU License, Again
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: none Byron Jeff wrote: [...] Good. Do you see that the extended code is a derivative of the original GPL code now? SCO/GNU postulatus 101. http://www.byte.com/documents/s=8276/byt1055784622054/0616_marshall.html (SCO Owns Your Computer ... All Your Base Are Belong To Us) That's apples and gorillas sir. The article you quote states that SCO thinks that any original code that has even been developed for Unix systems is a derivative and belongs to them. That far extends beyond the concept that if you take GPL code and extend that code, that the extension is a derivative. quote GPL GPL has the same derivative rights concept [as UNIX], according to Sontag... /quote Not true. If you write an original piece of code that runs on a Linux system, There are no GPL rights imposed upon it. OTOH if you take a piece of GPL codebase and extend it, that's a whole different matter. BTW I'm been meaning to ask why it is that you've been reduced to simple namecalling and heckeling in this newsgroup. When you first came on the scene you at least attempted to explain why it is that the GNU concept is flawed. But I haven't seen anything new from you in a couple of years. Just wondering. BAJ ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU License, Again
Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So the GNU GPL has been written by a goal different from the goals of the GNU project and the FSF. Fascinating. The GNU GPL is a legal document, it cannot insist on everything. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things. How can new free programs be meant to refer only to existing free programs? David, reread that sentence, it talks about using the GNU GPL in other free software programs. So new = other and existing in your book. Fascinating. It is about compatibility with other free licenses. Say the Modified BSD license. Except that pieces of GPLed programs _can't_ be used in programs licensed under a different license. That one can't see your writings about the GPL's goals coincide at all with the statements in the GPL itself, in the FSF's publications and in Stallman's articles about them as well as with the opinions of other GNU maintainers and developers, does not constitute any of those things you are lavishly labelling people with. They coincide with the statements of GPL, the FSF, the GNU project and of RMS. You are simply misreading things on purpose, this is not a new side from you. And again, everything that you can muster is flat denial without even an attempt at justifying your outlandish interpretations, and ad hominem attacks. -- 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
Re: GNU License, Again
So you believe that's not the goal of the GPL simply because the miniscule percentage of code that's never distributed isn't required to be distributed? I do not think it is possible to gauge or even know the percentage of GPLed code which is being privatized. The NSA could have taken all the code of GNU and transformed it into a gigantic monster which nobody knows, not to mention the rest of the world. Regards Koh Choon Lin ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU License, Again
It is about compatibility with other free licenses. Say the Modified BSD license. Except that pieces of GPLed programs _can't_ be used in programs licensed under a different license. Sure they can. You can use pieces of a GPLed program in a program that is licensed under the modified BSD license. Ofcourse, the resulting work has to be under the terms of the GPL, but the work is still under several different licenses. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU License, Again
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Except that pieces of GPLed programs _can't_ be used in programs licensed under a different license. Sure they can. You can use pieces of a GPLed program in a program that is licensed under the modified BSD license. Ofcourse, the resulting work has to be under the terms of the GPL, but the work is still under several different licenses. How is it under several different licences if it has to be under the GPL? Or do you just mean that the version that *didn't* use GPL code was under another licence? -- Richard -- Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters in some alphabets - X3.4, 1963. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU License, Again
So Richard talks explicitly about the _goal_ of the GPL, and he does this immediately before listing a number of projects that set out to create proprietary projects, and then were forced by their use of GPLed software to license them under the GPL. Which is to keep GPL software free, in this case, it kept GCC free. Reality check. GCC did not have a C++ frontend previously. So it did not keep what constituted GCC free, but rather added something new to it. The C++ front-end was a patch for GCC, so it kept GCC free. If it didn't, then we would have a non-free fork of GCC. So while it indirectly added something new (you can comply with the GPL by licensing the work under the same terms as the GPL), all it did was keep existing software free. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU License, Again
Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So Richard talks explicitly about the _goal_ of the GPL, and he does this immediately before listing a number of projects that set out to create proprietary projects, and then were forced by their use of GPLed software to license them under the GPL. Which is to keep GPL software free, in this case, it kept GCC free. Reality check. GCC did not have a C++ frontend previously. So it did not keep what constituted GCC free, but rather added something new to it. The C++ front-end was a patch for GCC, so it kept GCC free. If it didn't, then we would have a non-free fork of GCC. So while it indirectly added something new (you can comply with the GPL by licensing the work under the same terms as the GPL), all it did was keep existing software free. I thank you for this clear demonstration of your reasoning powers. I entertain no doubt that by now it is obvious to the reader what esteem your arguments are worthy of. -- 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
Re: GNU License, Again
On May 26, 10:45 am, David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The _growth_ and evolution of this pool is important: stagnation is not going to cut it much in a rapidly evolving landscape. It is important, but not the goal of the GPL and never was. Again, your views clash with that of the actual author of the GPL, even though you feel qualified for some reason to speak for him. I fail to see where they clash at all. That must be the reason why you removed both the URL as well as any trace of Richard's word from the reply. Richard speaks about sharing the pool of software that already exists, not converting non-free software into free software. Maybe when you wish to quote something, you ought to understand it first. You are not even fooling yourself. Is this not rather clearly expressed? Why do you feel that you are better qualified to state Stallman's views than Stallman himself? Yes, protecting the pool of free software that exists, not converting non-free software into free software. Thank you for proving my point. You are by now only stammering. First you try putting words in my mouth (as well as in Richard's), then you thank me for this pathetic and transparent attempt. Let us again take a look at Richard's words in URL:URL:http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/pragmatic.html, and let us see whether you will again cut both the URL as well as Richard's own words from your reply, exhibiting the deliberateness of your ignorance: Consider GNU C++. Why do we have a free C++ compiler? Only because the GNU GPL said it had to be free. GNU C++ was developed by an industry consortium, MCC, starting from the GNU C compiler. MCC normally makes its work as proprietary as can be. But they made the C++ front end free software, because the GNU GPL said that was the only way they could release it. The C++ front end included many new files, but since they were meant to be linked with GCC, the GPL did apply to them. The benefit to our community is evident. Consider GNU Objective C. NeXT initially wanted to make this front end proprietary; they proposed to release it as .o files, and let users link them with the rest of GCC, thinking this might be a way around the GPL's requirements. But our lawyer said that this would not evade the requirements, that it was not allowed. And so they made the Objective C front end free software. Those examples happened years ago, but the GNU GPL continues to bring us more free software. Many GNU libraries are covered by the GNU Lesser General Public License, but not all. One GNU library which is covered by the ordinary GNU GPL is Readline, which implements command-line editing. I once found out about a non-free program which was designed to use Readline, and told the developer this was not allowed. He could have taken command-line editing out of the program, but what he actually did was rerelease it under the GPL. Now it is free software. The programmers who write improvements to GCC (or Emacs, or Bash, or Linux, or any GPL-covered program) are often employed by companies or universities. When the programmer wants to return his improvements to the community, and see his code in the next release, the boss may say, ``Hold on there--your code belongs to us! We don't want to share it; we have decided to turn your improved version into a proprietary software product.'' Here the GNU GPL comes to the rescue. The programmer shows the boss that this proprietary software product would be copyright infringement, and the boss realizes that he has only two choices: release the new code as free software, or not at all. Almost always he lets the programmer do as he intended all along, and the code goes into the next release. These are Stallman's words. He lists several examples where software has been, in the end, released as free software that was planned and in some cases even distributed as non-free software. And he explains that he considers this the _strength_ of the GPL. There are separate essays where he also expounds on this, like in URL:http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/why-copyleft.html. Wow! I guess my understanding was correct after all. Thanks. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU License, Again
On May 26, 10:11 am, Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The _growth_ and evolution of this pool is important: stagnation is not going to cut it much in a rapidly evolving landscape. It is important, but not the goal of the GPL and never was. Again, your views clash with that of the actual author of the GPL, even though you feel qualified for some reason to speak for him. I fail to see where they clash at all. Richard speaks about sharing the pool of software that already exists, not converting non-free software into free software. Maybe when you wish to quote something, you ought to understand it first. Is this not rather clearly expressed? Why do you feel that you are better qualified to state Stallman's views than Stallman himself? Yes, protecting the pool of free software that exists, not converting non-free software into free software. Thank you for proving my point. Your point is bad, since it fails to address the fact that the GPL requires even the non-free (ie. non GPL or original) components of a derivative work whose majority of code is made up of said original stuff to be free/GPL, not just the free parts, if one wants to distribute it. If one does this, then one has added more code to that pool of free code -- one has made it grow. It therefore seems that at least one of the reasons, and an _important_ one at that, IS to help ensure the growth of free code -- otherwise why would they require that all the original stuff in the derivative be disclosed under GPL and not just the free stuff, which obviously leads to an increase in the amount of free code in the world and that is obviously doing *more* than just keeping GPL-free stuff free. I don't question your loyalty to Stallman, but you are not doing him a favor by making a spectacle of yourself and the GNU project by misrepresenting his views, even if it may be done in good faith. I have no loyalty to Richard. So then you prefer to follow your own bastardized version of Gnutianism instead of the original. Why??? ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU License, Again
On May 26, 11:52 am, David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Again you resort to petty personal attacks, how I kill text is completely irrelevant to the issue, I'm quite sure you are capable of following the thread. You also on purpose confuse _goal_ with what actually happens. I am in good company, since Richard is quite explicit that the goals of the GPL and its effects correspond (which is why he calls it a pragmatic license). Again, cf. URL:http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/pragmatic.html for his words on that: If you want to accomplish something in the world, idealism is not enough--you need to choose a method that works to achieve the goal. In other words, you need to be ``pragmatic.'' Is the GPL pragmatic? Let's look at its results. Consider GNU C++. Why do we have a free C++ compiler? Only because the GNU GPL said it had to be free. GNU C++ was developed by an industry consortium, MCC, starting from the GNU C compiler. MCC normally makes its work as proprietary as can be. But they made the C++ front end free software, because the GNU GPL said that was the only way they could release it. The C++ front end included many new files, but since they were meant to be linked with GCC, the GPL did apply to them. The benefit to our community is evident. So Richard talks explicitly about the _goal_ of the GPL, and he does this immediately before listing a number of projects that set out to create proprietary projects, and then were forced by their use of GPLed software to license them under the GPL. So the _goal_ is to ultimately get all software free, since said freedom is considered a vital right under the GNU philosophy (if not _the_ core right of the GNU philosophy). Hence the reason for requiring that any distribution of derivatives to have their full source code released under the GPL _in toto_, not just the GPL pars -- so that new code then enters the pool of free software and therefore contributes to the freedom of all users. I always thought this was what it was, it's just that this guy kept on going about how it only keeps GPL stuff free, essentially in denial of the fact it also helps catalyze the growth of the free software pool, which is more than just keeping GPL stuff free as it entails that additional free code is released. So I guess I'm in good company too. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU License, Again
mike3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This is why this discussion keeps going -- because you don't seem to be making sense, you just keep contradicting yourself! I don't know what to believe now. Alfred is exercising his notion of loyalty. Making sense is a secondary consideration for him: after all, he is repeating the words and ideas (or so he thinks) of people which are generally considered to be in full possession of their senses. If you want to get a somewhat coherent presentation of the motivations behind the GPL, I recommend that you rather concentrate on the links he provides and skip his own exegesis. -- 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
Re: GNU License, Again
mike3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On May 24, 5:43 pm, Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You can reduce it to a semantic debate. But in the end the GPL is structured so that the only legal way for you to redistribute modified copies of GPL licensed code is to license the modifications under the GPL. There are several ways to come into compliance, this is one of them. Requesting the copyright holder to change the license is another. And a third is simply not using the GPL program. But that does not change the requirement for when you use GPL code, which obviously shows more goals were in mind for the license than simply keeping free code free. Certainly. The idea of GPL code is to create and foster a separate _pool_ of free software. Richard Stallman does not agree with the extent of the powers that copyright law lends to every copyright owner in contrast to software users. So he crafted the GPL in order to create an _environment_ and pool of free software that would rely on a notion of sharing to become compulsory between those that use it. The _growth_ and evolution of this pool is important: stagnation is not going to cut it much in a rapidly evolving landscape. So the GPL os designed to extend to new work as far as it can, and that is dictated by the reach of copyright law and jurisdiction centered around derivatives and collections. Going further than that would be imprudent since it would lead to court cases where parts of the license could be declared invalid. -- 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
Re: GNU License, Again
Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The original is no longer free, since it depends on a non-free work. The resulting work, a deriviate, is no longer free. And for the last time, the GPL cannot make anything free, only the copyright holder can. How is the free code suddenly dependent on the non free work? The non-free work is what's dependent on the free code, not the other way around, in my scenario. It is a _deriviate_, that is how it is dependant. It doesn't matter what depends on what. Could you please at least spell the word correctly? You have been mocked about this deriviate invention of yours for years now. Existing words are derive, derivate and derivative. While you would still not make more sense, it would look less foolish if the terms you used actually existed. -- 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
Re: GNU License, Again
On May 26, 1:39 am, David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: mike3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On May 24, 5:43 pm, Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You can reduce it to a semantic debate. But in the end the GPL is structured so that the only legal way for you to redistribute modified copies of GPL licensed code is to license the modifications under the GPL. There are several ways to come into compliance, this is one of them. Requesting the copyright holder to change the license is another. And a third is simply not using the GPL program. But that does not change the requirement for when you use GPL code, which obviously shows more goals were in mind for the license than simply keeping free code free. Certainly. The idea of GPL code is to create and foster a separate _pool_ of free software. Richard Stallman does not agree with the extent of the powers that copyright law lends to every copyright owner in contrast to software users. So he crafted the GPL in order to create an _environment_ and pool of free software that would rely on a notion of sharing to become compulsory between those that use it. The _growth_ and evolution of this pool is important: stagnation is not going to cut it much in a rapidly evolving landscape. So the GPL os designed to extend to new work as far as it can, and that is dictated by the reach of copyright law and jurisdiction centered around derivatives and collections. Going further than that would be imprudent since it would lead to court cases where parts of the license could be declared invalid. This makes much more sense as rationale/explanation -- it not only admits but explains why the license is designed so that one is required to increase the amount of GPL code in the world by releasing all modifications or works that use GPL code under GPL, if they decide to use said code and release said mods/works. Namely, the reason is to keep the pool of GPL code growing and evolving, not just to keep some scrap of GPL code free. This was what I suspected, however all those seeming dodges or denials created nothing but pure confusion. -- 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
Re: GNU License, Again
On May 26, 1:45 am, David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: mike3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This is why this discussion keeps going -- because you don't seem to be making sense, you just keep contradicting yourself! I don't know what to believe now. Alfred is exercising his notion of loyalty. Making sense is a secondary consideration for him: after all, he is repeating the words and ideas (or so he thinks) of people which are generally considered to be in full possession of their senses. So since it does not make sense, then he has failed in repeating it successfully, as if the people are in full posession of their senses, what they say should make sense. If it does, and his reiteration does not, he has, obviously, failed. If you want to get a somewhat coherent presentation of the motivations behind the GPL, I recommend that you rather concentrate on the links he provides and skip his own exegesis. I looked through them but there is a lot there and I haven't yet found anything that would really specifically answer my question. None of the stuff I've found explains why the entire source code of a combined work must be released -- most of the rationale could seem to be appeased with simply releasing only the free GPL program that was used in the non-free or non-GPL one. Maybe it's just that I am not familiar with the extreme subtleties of Gnutianism, however none of the provided material seems to do the trick... -- 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
Re: GNU License, Again
Proprietary software is alaways wrong. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU License, Again
Then what's all this talk about virality, etc.? Same reason why people spread FUD. You seem to be contradicting yourself. At one moment you say that one needs to release the combined work under GPL (which by definition releases the original part of the program's source code under GPL since that is part of the combined work I have never said that, you are not required to accept the GPL. You are free not to accept it. Please refer to the GPL instead of me for further questions. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU License, Again
The _growth_ and evolution of this pool is important: stagnation is not going to cut it much in a rapidly evolving landscape. It is important, but not the goal of the GPL and never was. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU License, Again
It is a _deriviate_, that is how it is dependant. It doesn't matter what depends on what. Could you please at least spell the word correctly? You have been mocked about this deriviate invention of yours for years now. Existing words are derive, derivate and derivative. While you would still not make more sense, it would look less foolish if the terms you used actually existed. As usual, you have nothing but personal attacks to throw. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU License, Again
mike3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On May 26, 1:45 am, David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you want to get a somewhat coherent presentation of the motivations behind the GPL, I recommend that you rather concentrate on the links he provides and skip his own exegesis. I looked through them but there is a lot there and I haven't yet found anything that would really specifically answer my question. You might want to read the GNU Manifesto. It is quite outspoken. While the connection to the GPL might not seem apparent, the GPL is a legal document, and so there is little place (except in the preamble) for philosophy or motivation. And indeed, in the preamble you'll find the following: The licenses for most software are designed to take away your freedom to share and change it. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software--to make sure the software is free for all ^ Note that this does not talk about a particular piece of free software. its users. This General Public License applies to most of the Free Software Foundation's software and to any other program whose authors commit to using it. (Some other Free Software Foundation software is covered by the GNU Lesser General Public License instead.) You can apply it to your programs, too. When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can ^^ Note that this does not specifically restrict the usage of parts to the creation of new free programs. The GNU project is not interested in aiding the creation of non-free programs. To the extent that it is legally permissable, the release of software under the GPL will not serve to make it easier to create non-free software. do these things. None of the stuff I've found explains why the entire source code of a combined work must be released -- most of the rationale could seem to be appeased with simply releasing only the free GPL program that was used in the non-free or non-GPL one. The GPL is not designed to help with creation of non-free software. You are out on your own except where the law itself restricts the compass of copyright. Maybe it's just that I am not familiar with the extreme subtleties of Gnutianism, however none of the provided material seems to do the trick... There is actually no subtlety involved at all. The GNU project will not support the creation of non-free software, to the extent that the law will permit. Any subtleties revolve solely about how far the law actually extends. In the U.S. jurisdiction, the purported extent of copyright law, as put forward by typical case law, is shere lunacy. It is to the best interest of the FSF to claim the full extent of this lunacy for their interpretation of copyright law and the GPL. One of the best things that can happen to them if this extent gets cut down in court, and thus case law gets established that _restricts_ the extent of copyright law as interpreted by the courts. So even if the FSF might be going out on a limb, it is because they only have to gain if the limb breaks off: the consequences will be the same for both proprietary and free software's control over derivatives and related work. It does not appear, however, that those positions will actually get challenged by important players: they stand too much to lose themselves if the assumed rules change. -- 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
Re: GNU License, Again
Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The _growth_ and evolution of this pool is important: stagnation is not going to cut it much in a rapidly evolving landscape. It is important, but not the goal of the GPL and never was. Again, your views clash with that of the actual author of the GPL, even though you feel qualified for some reason to speak for him. Let us read what he himself has to say about that: URL:http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/pragmatic.html My work on free software is motivated by an idealistic goal: spreading freedom and cooperation. I want to encourage free software to spread, replacing proprietary software that forbids cooperation, and thus make our society better. That's the basic reason why the GNU General Public License is written the way it is--as a copyleft. All code added to a GPL-covered program must be free software, even if it is put in a separate file. I make my code available for use in free software, and not for use in proprietary software, in order to encourage other people who write software to make it free as well. I figure that since proprietary software developers use copyright to stop us from sharing, we cooperators can use copyright to give other cooperators an advantage of their own: they can use our code. Is this not rather clearly expressed? Why do you feel that you are better qualified to state Stallman's views than Stallman himself? I don't question your loyalty to Stallman, but you are not doing him a favor by making a spectacle of yourself and the GNU project by misrepresenting his views, even if it may be done in good faith. -- 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
Re: GNU License, Again
John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: mike3 writes: Maybe it's just that I am not familiar with the extreme subtleties of Gnutianism, For that you must ask Alfred as he is the only known Gnutian. As far as I know, Alexander Terekhov is the one who has tried coining this term for deprecatory use, and he has been quite liberal in applying it to a number of people. So it would seem inappropriate to imply that this term has any specific relation to Alfred. In fact, it would appear that the term is intended to cover a _group_ of people and views, and Alfred's views are rather singular. -- 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
Re: GNU License, Again
John Hasler wrote: mike3 writes: Maybe it's just that I am not familiar with the extreme subtleties of Gnutianism, For that you must ask Alfred as he is the only known Gnutian. Alfred is ueber GNUtian. The only one (on my radar thus far). Next step in evolution of GNUtians. regards, alexander. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU License, Again
David Kastrup wrote: [...] put forward by typical case law, is shere lunacy. It is to the best interest of the FSF to claim the full extent of this lunacy for their interpretation of copyright law and the GPL. I have yet to see *any* references to case law by GNUtians to back their utterly lunatic interpretation of copyright law and the GPL. regards, alexander. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU License, Again
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] put forward by typical case law, is shere lunacy. It is to the best interest of the FSF to claim the full extent of this lunacy for their interpretation of copyright law and the GPL. I have yet to see *any* references to case law by GNUtians to back their utterly lunatic interpretation of copyright law and the GPL. Well, that cuts both ways. And the typical proprietary software licenses (which go widely unchallenged) make demands that are quite more atrocious. There is a general tendency by large law departments not to question the status quo. You may partly want to call it FUD if you want to, but it is FUD that is very much established and effective. I doubt there will be many parties more glad than the FSF if case law refuting it comes into being. But at the current point of time, it does not look like it. -- 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
Re: GNU License, Again
David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] put forward by typical case law, is shere lunacy. It is to the best interest of the FSF to claim the full extent of this lunacy for their interpretation of copyright law and the GPL. I have yet to see *any* references to case law by GNUtians to back their utterly lunatic interpretation of copyright law and the GPL. Well, that cuts both ways. And the typical proprietary software licenses (which go widely unchallenged) make demands that are quite more atrocious. This is called freedom to contract (the courts of course routinely deem some contract terms as unfair and don't enforce them). There is a general tendency by large law departments not to question the status quo. You may partly want to call it FUD if You are confusing freedom to contract with idiotic GNUtian interpretations of copyright law (non-binding opinion) and convoluted and ambiguous to boot wording of the GNU GPL (which is to be construed AGAINST drafter-grantee). regards, alexander. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU License, Again
The _growth_ and evolution of this pool is important: stagnation is not going to cut it much in a rapidly evolving landscape. It is important, but not the goal of the GPL and never was. Again, your views clash with that of the actual author of the GPL, even though you feel qualified for some reason to speak for him. I fail to see where they clash at all. Richard speaks about sharing the pool of software that already exists, not converting non-free software into free software. Maybe when you wish to quote something, you ought to understand it first. Is this not rather clearly expressed? Why do you feel that you are better qualified to state Stallman's views than Stallman himself? Yes, protecting the pool of free software that exists, not converting non-free software into free software. Thank you for proving my point. I don't question your loyalty to Stallman, but you are not doing him a favor by making a spectacle of yourself and the GNU project by misrepresenting his views, even if it may be done in good faith. I have no loyalty to Richard. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU License, Again
[...] and Alfred's views are rather singular. My views correspond with the views of the GNU project, so they are not singular. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU License, Again
mike3 wrote: [...] Maybe it's just that I am not familiar with the extreme subtleties of Gnutianism, however none of the provided material seems to do the trick... Try http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_T2Xqh-KnRE Mr. GNU President on the street. regards, alexander. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU License, Again
Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The _growth_ and evolution of this pool is important: stagnation is not going to cut it much in a rapidly evolving landscape. It is important, but not the goal of the GPL and never was. Again, your views clash with that of the actual author of the GPL, even though you feel qualified for some reason to speak for him. I fail to see where they clash at all. That must be the reason why you removed both the URL as well as any trace of Richard's word from the reply. Richard speaks about sharing the pool of software that already exists, not converting non-free software into free software. Maybe when you wish to quote something, you ought to understand it first. You are not even fooling yourself. Is this not rather clearly expressed? Why do you feel that you are better qualified to state Stallman's views than Stallman himself? Yes, protecting the pool of free software that exists, not converting non-free software into free software. Thank you for proving my point. You are by now only stammering. First you try putting words in my mouth (as well as in Richard's), then you thank me for this pathetic and transparent attempt. Let us again take a look at Richard's words in URL:URL:http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/pragmatic.html, and let us see whether you will again cut both the URL as well as Richard's own words from your reply, exhibiting the deliberateness of your ignorance: Consider GNU C++. Why do we have a free C++ compiler? Only because the GNU GPL said it had to be free. GNU C++ was developed by an industry consortium, MCC, starting from the GNU C compiler. MCC normally makes its work as proprietary as can be. But they made the C++ front end free software, because the GNU GPL said that was the only way they could release it. The C++ front end included many new files, but since they were meant to be linked with GCC, the GPL did apply to them. The benefit to our community is evident. Consider GNU Objective C. NeXT initially wanted to make this front end proprietary; they proposed to release it as .o files, and let users link them with the rest of GCC, thinking this might be a way around the GPL's requirements. But our lawyer said that this would not evade the requirements, that it was not allowed. And so they made the Objective C front end free software. Those examples happened years ago, but the GNU GPL continues to bring us more free software. Many GNU libraries are covered by the GNU Lesser General Public License, but not all. One GNU library which is covered by the ordinary GNU GPL is Readline, which implements command-line editing. I once found out about a non-free program which was designed to use Readline, and told the developer this was not allowed. He could have taken command-line editing out of the program, but what he actually did was rerelease it under the GPL. Now it is free software. The programmers who write improvements to GCC (or Emacs, or Bash, or Linux, or any GPL-covered program) are often employed by companies or universities. When the programmer wants to return his improvements to the community, and see his code in the next release, the boss may say, ``Hold on there--your code belongs to us! We don't want to share it; we have decided to turn your improved version into a proprietary software product.'' Here the GNU GPL comes to the rescue. The programmer shows the boss that this proprietary software product would be copyright infringement, and the boss realizes that he has only two choices: release the new code as free software, or not at all. Almost always he lets the programmer do as he intended all along, and the code goes into the next release. These are Stallman's words. He lists several examples where software has been, in the end, released as free software that was planned and in some cases even distributed as non-free software. And he explains that he considers this the _strength_ of the GPL. There are separate essays where he also expounds on this, like in URL:http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/why-copyleft.html. I don't question your loyalty to Stallman, but you are not doing him a favor by making a spectacle of yourself and the GNU project by misrepresenting his views, even if it may be done in good faith. I have no loyalty to Richard. You are certainly not doing much that would help his cause, yes. -- 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
Re: GNU License, Again
[...] and Alfred's views are rather singular. My views correspond with the views of the GNU project, so they are not singular. A project has no view. People have views. And adopting their views is no substitute for understanding them. More strawmen, you know perfectly well that I was refering to all the GNU maintainers and developers. They make up the GNU project. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU License, Again
Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [...] and Alfred's views are rather singular. My views correspond with the views of the GNU project, so they are not singular. A project has no view. People have views. And adopting their views is no substitute for understanding them. More strawmen, you know perfectly well that I was refering to all the GNU maintainers and developers. They make up the GNU project. I am a GNU maintainer and developer. Your views don't correspond with mine. It appears you are mistaken. -- 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
Re: GNU License, Again
David Kastrup wrote: Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [...] and Alfred's views are rather singular. My views correspond with the views of the GNU project, so they are not singular. A project has no view. People have views. And adopting their views is no substitute for understanding them. More strawmen, you know perfectly well that I was refering to all the GNU maintainers and developers. They make up the GNU project. I am a GNU maintainer and developer. Your views don't correspond with mine. It appears you are mistaken. Alfred is simply more GNU-developed than you. regards, alexander. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU License, Again
David Kastrup wrote: [...] I am in good company, since Richard is quite explicit that the goals of the GPL and its effects correspond (which is why he calls it a pragmatic license). Again, cf. URL:http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/pragmatic.html for his words on that: If you want to accomplish something in the world, idealism is not enough--you need to choose a method that works to achieve the goal. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_T2Xqh-KnRE In other words, you need to be ``pragmatic.'' Jawohl! regards, alexander. -- We currently have 185 open tickets (i.e. reported GPL violations) at gpl-violations.org -- The GNU Monk Harald Welte ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU License, Again
On May 26, 4:01 am, David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: mike3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On May 26, 1:45 am, David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you want to get a somewhat coherent presentation of the motivations behind the GPL, I recommend that you rather concentrate on the links he provides and skip his own exegesis. I looked through them but there is a lot there and I haven't yet found anything that would really specifically answer my question. You might want to read the GNU Manifesto. It is quite outspoken. While the connection to the GPL might not seem apparent, the GPL is a legal document, and so there is little place (except in the preamble) for philosophy or motivation. And indeed, in the preamble you'll find the following: The licenses for most software are designed to take away your freedom to share and change it. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software--to make sure the software is free for all ^ Note that this does not talk about a particular piece of free software. Yes, it just says free software, and I didn't talk about one specific piece. I just talked about using some free code in general, that was covered under the GPL. its users. This General Public License applies to most of the Free Software Foundation's software and to any other program whose authors commit to using it. (Some other Free Software Foundation software is covered by the GNU Lesser General Public License instead.) You can apply it to your programs, too. When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can ^^ Note that this does specifically restrict the usage of parts to the creation of new free programs. The GNU project is not interested in aiding the creation of non-free programs. To the extent that it is legally permissable, the release of software under the GPL will not serve to make it easier to create non-free software. So therefore then the reason for demanding that the totality of a combined work also be free, not just the originally free GPL parts that were included in it, follows from this. do these things. None of the stuff I've found explains why the entire source code of a combined work must be released -- most of the rationale could seem to be appeased with simply releasing only the free GPL program that was used in the non-free or non-GPL one. The GPL is not designed to help with creation of non-free software. You are out on your own except where the law itself restricts the compass of copyright. Or if the author grants a different license. Maybe it's just that I am not familiar with the extreme subtleties of Gnutianism, however none of the provided material seems to do the trick... There is actually no subtlety involved at all. The GNU project will not support the creation of non-free software, to the extent that the law will permit. Any subtleties revolve solely about how far the law actually extends. In the U.S. jurisdiction, the purported extent of copyright law, as put forward by typical case law, is shere lunacy. It is to the best interest of the FSF to claim the full extent of this lunacy for their interpretation of copyright law and the GPL. One of the best things that can happen to them if this extent gets cut down in court, and thus case law gets established that _restricts_ the extent of copyright law as interpreted by the courts. So even if the FSF might be going out on a limb, it is because they only have to gain if the limb breaks off: the consequences will be the same for both proprietary and free software's control over derivatives and related work. It does not appear, however, that those positions will actually get challenged by important players: they stand too much to lose themselves if the assumed rules change. So then by allowing the non-free part of a derivative to be non-free and only the free part to remain free then it is, in a way, supporting the creation of more non-free software because it (said non-free software) still uses the functionality of the free software piece. -- 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
Re: GNU License, Again
On May 26, 4:09 am, Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Proprietary software is alaways wrong. Thanks for the response. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU License, Again
On May 25, 6:44 pm, mike3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On May 24, 5:54 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED](none) (Byron Jeff) wrote: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], mike3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On May 22, 6:35 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED](none) (Byron Jeff) wrote: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], mike3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On May 21, 5:22 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED](none) (Byron Jeff) wrote: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], snip Why? What is the purpose of making the license that way? Oh, that's right -- to create MORE free code. Yeah. That's the purpose of the license. It's a pay it forward license. Thank you for vindicating my understanding! I am pleased. cheers Mike, After getting slapped around a bit by Alfred, I'd like to add that all of this is MHO from what I've read over the years as to why the GPL is structured the way it is. If you want real intent, you really need to talk to RMS and other folks at the FSF. How could I contact them? So then if I do NOT own the GPL program, but make it a vital unique- functionality component, however I do NOT distribute it (the GPL program, not the non-GPL one) in a non-GPL way and only distribute the NON-GPL components of the program (ie. the ORIGINAL) ones in the non-GPL way (since I own it I can do whatever the heck I please), then it is still OK, since I'm still not trying to take over or restrict the GPL program and the GPL program is still being distributed for free. No it not OK. Back to my point. If the GPL component is a unique and vital part of the system, then the code that you have written is incomplete without it. In other words, without the GPL code, you don't have a program. It follows then that your code is a derivative of the GPL program because it's non functioning without it. It needs to be GPLed. That's why the duplicate functionality is so important. If your code can be a complete functioning system without using the GPL program in any form (i.e. there is other code that duplicates the GPL functionality) then no claim can be made that your code is incomplete without the GPL code. But you defined the parameters here. If you code is non functional without the GPL code, then you have created a derivative work of the GPL code, regardless of physical separation or separate distribution. That's right. And that is exactly what I am asking about. Good. Do you see that the extended code is a derivative of the original GPL code now? I never denied this. Perhaps I should rephrase the question. Make sure to read this, it is important! It better captures what I am trying to ask! Given an original program, and a GPL program I do not own, and then I interface my program with the GPL program so it is dependent on it, but it is also made in such a way that the GPL program and non-GPL program can be offered separately, the GPL parts offered under GPL and free, while the non-GPL part offered for a price. I got it. The separation is irrelavent. The key is then I interface my program with the GPL program so that it is dependent on it. In that case you do not have a separate program, but a derivative. You code then needs to be GPLed. And to clarify, your code would need to be licensed as GPL to anyone to whom you distribute it. It's a moot point if you do not distribute the modifications to anyone. Again, this confirms my understanding that it helps create new free code. 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_
Re: GNU License, Again
On May 26, 4:09 am, Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Then what's all this talk about virality, etc.? Same reason why people spread FUD. You seem to be contradicting yourself. At one moment you say that one needs to release the combined work under GPL (which by definition releases the original part of the program's source code under GPL since that is part of the combined work I have never said that, you are not required to accept the GPL. You are free not to accept it. Please refer to the GPL instead of me for further questions. Didn't say I did, I was just asking about how and WHY it applies the way it does during certain circumstances. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU License, Again
So Richard talks explicitly about the _goal_ of the GPL, and he does this immediately before listing a number of projects that set out to create proprietary projects, and then were forced by their use of GPLed software to license them under the GPL. Which is to keep GPL software free, in this case, it kept GCC free. And one way for MCC to comply was to license their changes under the GPL. Again, thank you for proving my point. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU License, Again
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], mike3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On May 26, 1:45 am, David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: mike3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Snippage on Alfred... If you want to get a somewhat coherent presentation of the motivations behind the GPL, I recommend that you rather concentrate on the links he provides and skip his own exegesis. I looked through them but there is a lot there and I haven't yet found anything that would really specifically answer my question. None of the stuff I've found explains why the entire source code of a combined work must be released -- most of the rationale could seem to be appeased with simply releasing only the free GPL program that was used in the non-free or non-GPL one. I've made several attempts to answer that question for you. David has posted numerous examples from RMS himself that shows the rationale. Even in his own roundabout way Alfred is driving the point home. I thought we had gotten past the point of understanding that the GPL attempts to propogate a free software base. You keep asking why it has to be that way... why can't there be a combination of free and non free software with the free part remaining free and the non free part remaining closed. Free software stagnates when it is not shared. The network effect of everyone being able to see, change, and share leverages the free software base. What you propose closes off a part of that base from the community that created it. You can't get to your extensions without having the original free base. BTW you can't go the other way either. Someone cannot take a closed software base and inject free code for the purpose of freeing the entire software base. At the end of the day each developer gets to choose how their software base is distributed. Folks who use the GPL want their code and here's the important point: ANY FUTURE MODIFICATIONS AND/OR ADDITIONS to be distributed with the same rights that the downstream developer received it. At the end of the day there doesn't have to be a logical explanation for it. That's what the author wanted, so that's how he/she licensed it. The insertion of propritary software into a free codebase stifles the development of the free codebase. It's like profit taking from the stock market. If everything is reinvested, then it grows faster. Maybe it's just that I am not familiar with the extreme subtleties of Gnutianism, however none of the provided material seems to do the trick... Maybe you need the seminal event that RMS going with the GPL and the FSF to motivate your understanding. Take a read of chapters 1,2, and 7 of Free as in Freedom, a biography of Richard Stallman. You can find it online here: http://www.oreilly.com/openbook/freedom BAJ ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU License, Again
Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So Richard talks explicitly about the _goal_ of the GPL, and he does this immediately before listing a number of projects that set out to create proprietary projects, and then were forced by their use of GPLed software to license them under the GPL. Which is to keep GPL software free, in this case, it kept GCC free. Reality check. GCC did not have a C++ frontend previously. So it did not keep what constituted GCC free, but rather added something new to it. And one way for MCC to comply was to license their changes under the GPL. Again, thank you for proving my point. You really love that sentence, even though it is hilariously wrong time and again. -- 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
Re: GNU License, Again
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], mike3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why? What is the purpose of making the license that way? Oh, that's right -- to create MORE free code. Yeah. That's the purpose of the license. It's a pay it forward license. Thank you for vindicating my understanding! I am pleased. cheers ... If you want real intent, you really need to talk to RMS and other folks at the FSF. How could I contact them? www.fsf.org is a good starting place. So then if I do NOT own the GPL program, but make it a vital unique- functionality component, however I do NOT distribute it (the GPL program, not the non-GPL one) in a non-GPL way and only distribute the NON-GPL components of the program (ie. the ORIGINAL) ones in the non-GPL way (since I own it I can do whatever the heck I please), then it is still OK, since I'm still not trying to take over or restrict the GPL program and the GPL program is still being distributed for free. No it not OK. Back to my point. If the GPL component is a unique and vital part of the system, then the code that you have written is incomplete without it. In other words, without the GPL code, you don't have a program. It follows then that your code is a derivative of the GPL program because it's non functioning without it. It needs to be GPLed. That's why the duplicate functionality is so important. If your code can be a complete functioning system without using the GPL program in any form (i.e. there is other code that duplicates the GPL functionality) then no claim can be made that your code is incomplete without the GPL code. But you defined the parameters here. If you code is non functional without the GPL code, then you have created a derivative work of the GPL code, regardless of physical separation or separate distribution. That's right. And that is exactly what I am asking about. Good. Do you see that the extended code is a derivative of the original GPL code now? I never denied this. You seem to by your questions. Understanding that the complete work is free means understanding that it all needs to be released via the GPL. Perhaps I should rephrase the question. Make sure to read this, it is important! It better captures what I am trying to ask! Given an original program, and a GPL program I do not own, and then I interface my program with the GPL program so it is dependent on it, but it is also made in such a way that the GPL program and non-GPL program can be offered separately, the GPL parts offered under GPL and free, while the non-GPL part offered for a price. I got it. The separation is irrelavent. The key is then I interface my program with the GPL program so that it is dependent on it. In that case you do not have a separate program, but a derivative. You code then needs to be GPLed. And to clarify, your code would need to be licensed as GPL to anyone to whom you distribute it. It's a moot point if you do not distribute the modifications to anyone. Again, this confirms my understanding that it helps create new free code. 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? Because it's proprietary and has a proprietary license. The only reason to do what you are proposing is to be able to sell B. A still retains it's original functionality without B. B has additional functionality over A. You can do things with A+B that you cannot do with A. B's non free license means that users of A+B do not have the same rights as the users of A. You'd only need to purchase B if A was somehow made dependent on B, which it is not. A+B is presumably better than A. So users will want A+B. What if it _is_ compatible with A, then what? Same point A+B isn't at the same level of freeness as A. A+B is a derivative of A. A+B needs to be as free as A is. 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. Right. And since A is under the GPL, the author(s) of A expressly did not want this to happen. 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
Re: GNU License, Again
Richard Tobin wrote: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Copyright licenses apply to work, idiot. Copyright arises from works, licenses (which require copyright) apply to copies. Stop being an utter idiot. Think human brain. And why I'm not surprised that in the GNU Republic copyleft licenses apply to human brains (copies). You're drivelling. If you have a point, please make it. Enlighten yourself. Hint: 17 USC 106. regards, alexander. -- This message is brought to you courtesy of the Anti-GNU Imperium. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU License, Again
none Byron Jeff wrote: [...] Good. Do you see that the extended code is a derivative of the original GPL code now? SCO/GNU postulatus 101. http://www.byte.com/documents/s=8276/byt1055784622054/0616_marshall.html (SCO Owns Your Computer ... All Your Base Are Belong To Us) quote GPL GPL has the same derivative rights concept [as UNIX], according to Sontag... /quote regards, alexander. -- This message is brought to you courtesy of the Anti-GNU Imperium. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU License, Again
On May 24, 1:48 pm, 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. The original is no longer free, since it depends on a non-free work. The resulting work, a deriviate, is no longer free. And for the last time, the GPL cannot make anything free, only the copyright holder can. How is the free code suddenly dependent on the non free work? The non-free work is what's dependent on the free code, not the other way around, in my scenario. Saying the GPL makes things free is a quick way of saying that the GPL requires you to make things free if you want to use other free things (specifically, GPLed free things) in a certain way. It's just a lot shorter, and I am surprised you want such excruciating, exacting detail. Most people could get the drift of what I'm saying. We're obviously way off base with the understanding. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU License, Again
The original is no longer free, since it depends on a non-free work. The resulting work, a deriviate, is no longer free. And for the last time, the GPL cannot make anything free, only the copyright holder can. How is the free code suddenly dependent on the non free work? The non-free work is what's dependent on the free code, not the other way around, in my scenario. It is a _deriviate_, that is how it is dependant. It doesn't matter what depends on what. 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. You could equally argue here that the free program does not depend on the non-free parts, since the non-free parts only add functionality, but that is not relevant, since the _WHOLE_ work is what matters. Saying the GPL makes things free is a quick way of saying that the GPL requires you to make things free if you want to use other free things (specifically, GPLed free things) in a certain way. It's just a lot shorter, and I am surprised you want such excruciating, exacting detail. Most people could get the drift of what I'm saying. It is the difference between pi being 3.14 and 4. One is a good aproximation, the other is completely bogus. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU License, Again
On May 24, 5:43 pm, Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You can reduce it to a semantic debate. But in the end the GPL is structured so that the only legal way for you to redistribute modified copies of GPL licensed code is to license the modifications under the GPL. There are several ways to come into compliance, this is one of them. Requesting the copyright holder to change the license is another. And a third is simply not using the GPL program. But that does not change the requirement for when you use GPL code, which obviously shows more goals were in mind for the license than simply keeping free code free. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU License, Again
On May 24, 1:54 pm, Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why? What is the purpose of making the license that way? Oh, that's right -- to create MORE free code. Yeah. That's the purpose of the license. It's a pay it forward license. Thank you for vindicating my understanding! I am pleased. Byron Jeff has misunderstood the goal of the license. You are simply agreeing with a incorrect opinoin since it aligns with what you think it should be. The GPL cannot create more code. You are simply looking for a confirmation of a misunderstanding, from that you can deduce anything. You do not seem to understand that by create more code I do not mean it in this ultra-literal sense of causing code to come into existence. It is a shorter, and less literal form of this: The GPL requires one to release their own code as free under GPL if they use GPL code in said own code. So my understanding then is that it does more than simply keep code that was already free free, but that in ADDITION to that, it also requires one to release their non-free code as free if they want to use the free code, which therefore increases the amount of free code in existence. This is what I mean -- you do not seem to see that it does MORE than just keep free code free. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU License, Again
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
Re: GNU License, Again
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: The original is no longer free, since it depends on a non-free work. The resulting work, a deriviate, is no longer free. And for the last time, the GPL cannot make anything free, only the copyright holder can. How is the free code suddenly dependent on the non free work? The non-free work is what's dependent on the free code, not the other way around, in my scenario. It is a _deriviate_, that is how it is dependant. It doesn't matter what depends on what. Alfred, you have a talent. Now I've got to clean both monitors. regards, alexander. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU License, Again
The GPL requires one to release their own code as free under GPL if they use GPL code in said own code. I have already explained why this is false. Restating false statements over and over again is not useful. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU License, Again
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! Again, this has been explained before. 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. This has been explained over and over again to you, please refer to past message, articles on the GNU project web pages, etc. You are simply restating questions that have been answered before, trying to get a answer that you want, but that answer is not the true answer. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU License, Again
You have a preconceived notion of what you want, and you are trying to get that answer. It is pointless to spend anymore time trying to answer your questions, since you are only looking for a specific answer, which does not agree with reality. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU License, Again
On May 25, 1:56 pm, Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The original is no longer free, since it depends on a non-free work. The resulting work, a deriviate, is no longer free. And for the last time, the GPL cannot make anything free, only the copyright holder can. How is the free code suddenly dependent on the non free work? The non-free work is what's dependent on the free code, not the other way around, in my scenario. It is a _deriviate_, that is how it is dependant. It doesn't matter what depends on what. 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). PS. I bet these non-colloquial, and very formalized and precise usages of terms are probably why my statements about GPL licenses creating free code were misunderstood so horribly -- you expected highly exacting usage, not rough colloquials or get the drift type stuff, but instead take the word at exactly face value. There's nothing wrong with this, it's just that I didn't know. You could equally argue here that the free program does not depend on the non-free parts, since the non-free parts only add functionality, but that is not relevant, since the _WHOLE_ work is what matters. Again, see the comments I made above this. Are they correct? Did I finally get _your_ drift, now? Saying the GPL makes things free is a quick way of saying that the GPL requires you to make things free if you want to use other free things (specifically, GPLed free things) in a certain way. It's just a lot shorter, and I am surprised you want such excruciating, exacting detail. Most people could get the drift of what I'm saying. It is the difference between pi being 3.14 and 4. One is a good aproximation, the other is completely bogus. But you demand that it be interpreted in such literalistic terms. If you didn't do this, but well then I guess you were expecting literal exacting terms, and I was giving non-literal, inexacting colloquial ones, and I was expecting colloquial non-literal terms and you were giving literal exacting ones. Sheesh... ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU License, Again
On May 24, 1:39 pm, mike3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On May 22, 6:35 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED](none) (Byron Jeff) wrote: snip The GPL is viral. The viral nature of it is the same reason that networks need virus scanners, firewalls, and encryption. It's not for the majority of folks who want to play fair. It's for the small core of folks who will exploit every possible loophole for their own selfish benefit. I'd be wondering then what your opinion would be on the morality releasing 100% original software under a much looser proprietary license than, say, Microsoft's, and with _no_DRM, spywares, Trusted Computing codes, etc. This question is not about combining GPL stuff, this is a question about a philosophy and code of morals. You said the majority of folks want to play fair -- does this include most software companies as well, even if they do not make GPL software? I, for one, do not have much greed. Any response to this point yet? ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU License, Again
On May 25, 3:46 pm, Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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! Again, this has been explained before. 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. This has been explained over and over again to you, please refer to past message, articles on the GNU project web pages, etc. You are simply restating questions that have been answered before, trying to get a answer that you want, but that answer is not the true answer. Becuase the answers you give about keeping free code free did not make logical sense since _more_ code becomes free when you release a combined work under the GPL. And I haven't quite found an answer to _this specific_ question. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU License, Again
On May 25, 3:58 pm, Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You have a preconceived notion of what you want, and you are trying to get that answer. It is pointless to spend anymore time trying to answer your questions, since you are only looking for a specific answer, which does not agree with reality. Then I'll NEVER know since you don't want to answer that specific case. Why can't it agree with reality? Are you saying that it is _logically or physically impossible_ for the case to arise in reality? I think we're seeing past each other. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU License, Again
On May 25, 3:42 pm, Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The GPL requires one to release their own code as free under GPL if they use GPL code in said own code. I have already explained why this is false. Restating false statements over and over again is not useful. This is false? Then what's all this talk about virality, etc.? You seem to be contradicting yourself. At one moment you say that one needs to release the combined work under GPL (which by definition releases the original part of the program's source code under GPL since that is part of the combined work -- do you deny this clearly evident fact?!), then at another you are saying what amounts to no. What gives?! Releasing the code to the combined work means that you have to release your own code too! How can it not? This is why this discussion keeps going -- because you don't seem to be making sense, you just keep contradicting yourself! I don't know what to believe now. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU License, Again
On May 24, 5:54 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED](none) (Byron Jeff) wrote: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], mike3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On May 22, 6:35 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED](none) (Byron Jeff) wrote: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], mike3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On May 21, 5:22 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED](none) (Byron Jeff) wrote: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], snip Why? What is the purpose of making the license that way? Oh, that's right -- to create MORE free code. Yeah. That's the purpose of the license. It's a pay it forward license. Thank you for vindicating my understanding! I am pleased. cheers Mike, After getting slapped around a bit by Alfred, I'd like to add that all of this is MHO from what I've read over the years as to why the GPL is structured the way it is. If you want real intent, you really need to talk to RMS and other folks at the FSF. How could I contact them? So then if I do NOT own the GPL program, but make it a vital unique- functionality component, however I do NOT distribute it (the GPL program, not the non-GPL one) in a non-GPL way and only distribute the NON-GPL components of the program (ie. the ORIGINAL) ones in the non-GPL way (since I own it I can do whatever the heck I please), then it is still OK, since I'm still not trying to take over or restrict the GPL program and the GPL program is still being distributed for free. No it not OK. Back to my point. If the GPL component is a unique and vital part of the system, then the code that you have written is incomplete without it. In other words, without the GPL code, you don't have a program. It follows then that your code is a derivative of the GPL program because it's non functioning without it. It needs to be GPLed. That's why the duplicate functionality is so important. If your code can be a complete functioning system without using the GPL program in any form (i.e. there is other code that duplicates the GPL functionality) then no claim can be made that your code is incomplete without the GPL code. But you defined the parameters here. If you code is non functional without the GPL code, then you have created a derivative work of the GPL code, regardless of physical separation or separate distribution. That's right. And that is exactly what I am asking about. Good. Do you see that the extended code is a derivative of the original GPL code now? I never denied this. Perhaps I should rephrase the question. Make sure to read this, it is important! It better captures what I am trying to ask! Given an original program, and a GPL program I do not own, and then I interface my program with the GPL program so it is dependent on it, but it is also made in such a way that the GPL program and non-GPL program can be offered separately, the GPL parts offered under GPL and free, while the non-GPL part offered for a price. I got it. The separation is irrelavent. The key is then I interface my program with the GPL program so that it is dependent on it. In that case you do not have a separate program, but a derivative. You code then needs to be GPLed. And to clarify, your code would need to be licensed as GPL to anyone to whom you distribute it. It's a moot point if you do not distribute the modifications to anyone. Again, this confirms my understanding that it helps create new free code. 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
Re: GNU License, Again
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. 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. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU License, Again
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: [...] Then you have agreed to the GPL, and you must cause the whole work to be under the GPL as per section 2(b). This has been answered several times. He is merely aggregating his 100% original work with another work under the GPL you ueber GNUtian retard. The resulting aggregate work is usually not creative enough to even fall under copyright. But even if it is creative enough, it falls under his own copyright on a compilation which is totally separate and independent from copyrights on constituent works. HOUSE REPORT NO. 94-1476: - Between them the terms ''compilations'' and ''derivative works'' which are defined in section 101 comprehend every copyrightable work that employs preexisting material or data of any kind. There is necessarily some overlapping between the two, but they basically represent different concepts. A ''compilation'' results from a process of selecting, bringing together, organizing, and arranging previously existing material of all kinds, regardless of whether the individual items in the material have been or ever could have been subject to copyright [...] an unauthorized translation of a novel [i.e. derivative work] could not be copyrighted at all, but the owner of copyright in an anthology of poetry [i.e. compilation] could sue someone who infringed the whole anthology, even though the infringer proves that publication of one of the poems was unauthorized. - regards, alexander. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU License, Again
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: [...] So then why must it too be free, why must the license require that to be free? To keep things free, again, this was answered as well before. Man oh man, you're krank. Suppose he takes PUBLIC DOMAIN work and links it with the GPL'd work. Nobody can apply ANY copyright license to work in public domain. So how can public domain be possibly compatible with the GNU GPL given that you must cause the whole work to be under the GPL as per section 2(b)? Uh GNUtian retards. regards, alexander. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU License, Again
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: [...] So then why must it too be free, why must the license require that to be free? To keep things free, again, this was answered as well before. Man oh man, you're krank. Suppose he takes PUBLIC DOMAIN work and links it with the GPL'd work. Nobody can apply ANY copyright license to work in public domain. You are confused. Licenses apply to particular _copies_, not some general fuzzy availability concept. And the decisive mark of public domain work is that you can license copies that use them in whatever manner at your discretion. There is no requirement to do this in a way where the public domain part can still be isolated and extracted. So how can public domain be possibly compatible with the GNU GPL given that you must cause the whole work to be under the GPL as per section 2(b)? Uh GNUtian retards. Because it does not stay public domain when it is assembled with other material. You can't, for example, disassemble Microsoft's network stack and use it elsewhere under your discretion just because it is based on BSDlite. -- 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
Re: GNU License, Again
David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: [...] So then why must it too be free, why must the license require that to be free? To keep things free, again, this was answered as well before. Man oh man, you're krank. Suppose he takes PUBLIC DOMAIN work and links it with the GPL'd work. Nobody can apply ANY copyright license to work in public domain. You are confused. Licenses apply to particular _copies_, not some Copyright licenses apply to work, idiot. regards, alexander. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU License, Again
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: [...] So then why must it too be free, why must the license require that to be free? To keep things free, again, this was answered as well before. Man oh man, you're krank. Suppose he takes PUBLIC DOMAIN work and links it with the GPL'd work. Nobody can apply ANY copyright license to work in public domain. You are confused. Licenses apply to particular _copies_, not some Copyright licenses apply to work, idiot. Copyright arises from works, licenses (which require copyright) apply to copies. Having the copyright to a particular work allows you to license copies under a variety of different licenses under your discretion, so it is clear that the license does not apply to the work, but rather to the distributed copy. -- 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
Re: GNU License, Again
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
Re: GNU License, Again
David Kastrup writes: Because it does not stay public domain when it is assembled with other material. This is not true in the US. Elements of a work that are in the public domain are not protected by copyright even if the work does contain other elements that are protected. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU License, Again
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. The GPL is not a lifeform. No. I did not say it was. You do not seem to understand what I am saying. And please do not call people names, it is rude. You mean the GNUtian thing? Well, alright, I'll drop it. Let's put some concrete numbers to it to clarify. Say you start with a 100,000 LOC GPL fully functioning system. You write a 10 line extension to it. Should that 10 line extension be GPLed? I'll presume that you'll agree that it should. Feel free to argue why it should not if you like. Perhaps, but, what about a 100,000 LOC *NON*-GPL fully functioning system that we put a 10-line extension of *GPL* code into? That's the scenario I'm asking about. Even if it could do without those 10 lines of GPL code. Then you have agreed to the GPL, and you must cause the whole work to be under the GPL as per section 2(b). This has been answered several times. And I have not disgareed with that. I want two things: 1. explicit vindication that I am right in my understanding of the rationale behind the license -- that it is designed to make more code become free. (what else do you call having to release the entire original work of a 500,000 line program that used 500 lines of GPL code as GPL Free?) Addendum, just read the rest of the post here -- THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT: --- However you say this is wrong, and that it is merely to ensure that free code stays free. But then does this equate to a denial of the fact that when you release a combined work under GPL, formerly non-free code becomes free, and hence ADDITIONAL free code appears, which is MORE than simply keeping free code free? If not, then why? --- 2. an explanation of why an alternative license that would allow for the *original* part of said combined work to be released under an incompatible license _provided_ that the free part is distributed in a free manner along with the original work both in (due to vital dependence) and out of the combined package, would be morally and ethically wrong even though it keeps the free part free. Ie. like GPL but without the requirement that the entire source to derivative works must be released -- only the free part -- if at least the overwhelming majority of the code of the combined work is original. snip 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. Is agreeing to release what was formerly non-free code not making more free code? Obviously it is making free code! This sounds like this: Me: This gun is designed to hurt and kill people. You: No, it's built to burn gunpowder. Me: It's built for killing or hurting people. You: No, it burns gunpowder. Me: It KILLS PEOPLE!!! You: It BURNS GUNPOWDER Me: well DUH!! See? Your explanation seems incomplete. If the gun was only designed to burn gunpowder, why is the bullet included? Why the barrel obviously designed for channeling a projectile? snip To keep code free. See above. This makes no sense. Ie. To burn gunpowder. snip It is to keep code free. Again, see above. It doesn't jive. Ie. It is to burn gunpowder. If making GPL code non-GPL was as simple as physically separating it from the GPL code, then the GPL would be totally neutered for its intented purpose. Aha! So we've hit on the purpose then -- to CAUSE MORE CODE TO BE FREE. Thank you. I am vindicated in my understanding then! No, this is not the point of the GPL, since it cannot possible do this. As has been stated several times not, the point and only point of the GPL is to keep free code free. I do not understand how requiring ADDITIONAL code be
Re: GNU License, Again
On May 22, 6:35 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED](none) (Byron Jeff) wrote: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], mike3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On May 21, 5:22 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED](none) (Byron Jeff) wrote: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], snip Why? What is the purpose of making the license that way? Oh, that's right -- to create MORE free code. Yeah. That's the purpose of the license. It's a pay it forward license. Thank you for vindicating my understanding! I am pleased. cheers So then if I do NOT own the GPL program, but make it a vital unique- functionality component, however I do NOT distribute it (the GPL program, not the non-GPL one) in a non-GPL way and only distribute the NON-GPL components of the program (ie. the ORIGINAL) ones in the non-GPL way (since I own it I can do whatever the heck I please), then it is still OK, since I'm still not trying to take over or restrict the GPL program and the GPL program is still being distributed for free. No it not OK. Back to my point. If the GPL component is a unique and vital part of the system, then the code that you have written is incomplete without it. In other words, without the GPL code, you don't have a program. It follows then that your code is a derivative of the GPL program because it's non functioning without it. It needs to be GPLed. That's why the duplicate functionality is so important. If your code can be a complete functioning system without using the GPL program in any form (i.e. there is other code that duplicates the GPL functionality) then no claim can be made that your code is incomplete without the GPL code. But you defined the parameters here. If you code is non functional without the GPL code, then you have created a derivative work of the GPL code, regardless of physical separation or separate distribution. That's right. And that is exactly what I am asking about. Perhaps I should rephrase the question. Make sure to read this, it is important! It better captures what I am trying to ask! Given an original program, and a GPL program I do not own, and then I interface my program with the GPL program so it is dependent on it, but it is also made in such a way that the GPL program and non-GPL program can be offered separately, the GPL parts offered under GPL and free, while the non-GPL part offered for a price. I got it. The separation is irrelavent. The key is then I interface my program with the GPL program so that it is dependent on it. In that case you do not have a separate program, but a derivative. You code then needs to be GPLed. Again, this confirms my understanding that it helps create new free code. Now the one way that I have seen to get around this restriction is to create two completely separate programs that communicate with each other in a client-server fashion. In that case one can be GPLed and the other not. If this is still not permitted, why not? What would be the rationale for making the license that way? It does not seem to be to preserve the freeness of the GPLed code, since the above scenario would still keep it free, after all. Simple. You are benefitting from other's generosity without contributing yourself. Stallman and the FSF are clear in their political agenda that they want all code to be GPLed. So the license is written so that the price for using GPLed code (again regardless of physical separation of components) is that you must GPL your code. So I am right, then. I am EXACTLY right. The other half of the rationale *IS* to ensure that additional free code emerges, to ensure that MORE code gets added to the repertoire of free code. However, why couldn't one pay off the debt owed with a different piece of (but still useful) code? What would be bad about a license designed to do that? And I am right about it being a price too -- if you want to use the free code you pay for that right with your own code instead of with money. Thanks again for the vindication. What you're missing in their agenda is not the freeness of their code, but the freeness of your extension to their code. By stipulating that the GPL code is a vital and unique aspect of your system, then your code is an extension of the GPL code. Let me flip it to explain why this is important. Without this restriction developers would make GPL code effectively non free simply by taking a core GPL engine (remember vital and unique) and extending it with proprietary components until the functionality of the GPL core engine is virtually useless without the proprietary extensions. It would become a simple encapsulation of free code with non free code, making a non free system with a free core. A system that could not function without that free core, as stipulated by your scenario. It turns a initally free system into a non free one. How does it become virtually useless if the GPL core engine itself remains unchanged? What I am talking about is a scenario where the GPL core itself
Re: GNU License, Again
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. The original is no longer free, since it depends on a non-free work. The resulting work, a deriviate, is no longer free. And for the last time, the GPL cannot make anything free, only the copyright holder can. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU License, Again
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. And please do not call people names, it is rude. You mean the GNUtian thing? Well, alright, I'll drop it. Thank you. 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. 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. 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. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU License, Again
Why? What is the purpose of making the license that way? Oh, that's right -- to create MORE free code. Yeah. That's the purpose of the license. It's a pay it forward license. Thank you for vindicating my understanding! I am pleased. Byron Jeff has misunderstood the goal of the license. You are simply agreeing with a incorrect opinoin since it aligns with what you think it should be. The GPL cannot create more code. You are simply looking for a confirmation of a misunderstanding, from that you can deduce anything. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU License, Again
On 2007-05-24, mike3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. Rather than ask the same question over and over, you might consider visiting the gnu website. They provide all the details you're looking for. A good place to start is Richard Stallman's 'Free Software, Free Society', where he explains his original motivations and goals for Free Software in general, and the GPL in particular. It's available to browse on-line or to download, or you can even buy a hardcopy if you so wish. You should find it in the documentation section. Tyler ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU License, Again
John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David Kastrup writes: Because it does not stay public domain when it is assembled with other material. This is not true in the US. Elements of a work that are in the public domain are not protected by copyright even if the work does contain other elements that are protected. If they can still be isolated as separate parts of the work. Since copyright does not depend on copyright notices and the people utilizing PD works are neither required to leave them unchanged nor indicate which parts are completely extracted from the PD source, the only reliable way to pick things apart is to utilize an unmodified copy, and then it is pretty pointless to extract them from the combined work. There is one case where this could possibly be slightly relevant: you have a friend with the original source, but no fast internet access. The friend sends you the SHA256 sums of the public domain source files, and you establish that they correspond with most of your source files. For the few files for which they don't correspond, your friend sends you the original. But in most cases, there is little point in trying to pick apart things and rely on them being completely unchanged. -- 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
Re: GNU License, Again
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Copyright licenses apply to work, idiot. Copyright arises from works, licenses (which require copyright) apply to copies. Stop being an utter idiot. Think human brain. And why I'm not surprised that in the GNU Republic copyleft licenses apply to human brains (copies). You're drivelling. If you have a point, please make it. -- Richard -- Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters in some alphabets - X3.4, 1963. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU License, Again
I wrote: Elements of a work that are in the public domain are not protected by copyright even if the work does contain other elements that are protected. There is one case where this could possibly be slightly relevant... It can be more than slightly relevant if you are sued for copyright infringment. Even if the plaintiff can show that a substantial portion of your work is identical to a portion of his and that you had access you are off the hook if you can show that said portion is substantially similar to a portion of a work that is in the public domain. But in most cases, there is little point in trying to pick apart things and rely on them being completely unchanged. They need not be completely unchanged. The changes must be so substantial as to create a protected element. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU License, Again
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why? What is the purpose of making the license that way? Oh, that's right -- to create MORE free code. Yeah. That's the purpose of the license. It's a pay it forward license. Thank you for vindicating my understanding! I am pleased. Byron Jeff has misunderstood the goal of the license. Alfred, I don't misunderstand the goal of the license. In your other posts you state that the GPL doesn't make your code free and that a judge can't make you free your code. On the flip side, the license does state that if you do not release your code under the GPL then you don't have the right to distribute it. By the same token a judge can demand that you not distribute your product. You can reduce it to a semantic debate. But in the end the GPL is structured so that the only legal way for you to redistribute modified copies of GPL licensed code is to license the modifications under the GPL. So feel free to explain exactly how the GPL is not designed to ensure that distributed downstream modifications are not to be free. Which the last time that I checked is exactly what Mike asked about. You are simply agreeing with a incorrect opinoin since it aligns with what you think it should be. The GPL cannot create more code. But it is structured such that any derivative code can only be released under the GPL. That not being created is a semantic argument, not a functional one. You are simply looking for a confirmation of a misunderstanding, from that you can deduce anything. And you seem to be letting verbal semantics get in the way of meaningful discussion. The guy wants to understand why the GPL is structured the way that it is. Why can there not be balance and harmony between systems built with a combination of GPLed and non-GPLed components? I've made some attempts to explain why it doesn't work. While my verbiage wouldn't necessarily stand legal muster, at least it is verbiage that attempts to explain why the GPL is structured the way that it is. So instead of dogging my (or Mike's) words, try to explain to the guy why the system is structured the way that it is. BAJ ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU License, Again
You can reduce it to a semantic debate. But in the end the GPL is structured so that the only legal way for you to redistribute modified copies of GPL licensed code is to license the modifications under the GPL. There are several ways to come into compliance, this is one of them. Requesting the copyright holder to change the license is another. And a third is simply not using the GPL program. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU License, Again
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You can reduce it to a semantic debate. But in the end the GPL is structured so that the only legal way for you to redistribute modified copies of GPL licensed code is to license the modifications under the GPL. There are several ways to come into compliance, this is one of them. Requesting the copyright holder to change the license is another. And a third is simply not using the GPL program. Mike wants to understand why the GPL is structured to have such compliance. I've seen your posts that states to go read this document and that document. I'd like to hear your summary of why the GPL is structured so that the easiest avenue to be in compliance with the license is to release modifications under the GPL. Why is the GPL structured so that GPL and non compatible GPL components cannot be combined into a distributable combined work? I've given my take on why. I'd like to hear yours, or your interpretation of others' take on the subject as to why. BAJ ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU License, Again
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], mike3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On May 22, 6:35 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED](none) (Byron Jeff) wrote: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], mike3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On May 21, 5:22 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED](none) (Byron Jeff) wrote: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], snip Why? What is the purpose of making the license that way? Oh, that's right -- to create MORE free code. Yeah. That's the purpose of the license. It's a pay it forward license. Thank you for vindicating my understanding! I am pleased. cheers Mike, After getting slapped around a bit by Alfred, I'd like to add that all of this is MHO from what I've read over the years as to why the GPL is structured the way it is. If you want real intent, you really need to talk to RMS and other folks at the FSF. So then if I do NOT own the GPL program, but make it a vital unique- functionality component, however I do NOT distribute it (the GPL program, not the non-GPL one) in a non-GPL way and only distribute the NON-GPL components of the program (ie. the ORIGINAL) ones in the non-GPL way (since I own it I can do whatever the heck I please), then it is still OK, since I'm still not trying to take over or restrict the GPL program and the GPL program is still being distributed for free. No it not OK. Back to my point. If the GPL component is a unique and vital part of the system, then the code that you have written is incomplete without it. In other words, without the GPL code, you don't have a program. It follows then that your code is a derivative of the GPL program because it's non functioning without it. It needs to be GPLed. That's why the duplicate functionality is so important. If your code can be a complete functioning system without using the GPL program in any form (i.e. there is other code that duplicates the GPL functionality) then no claim can be made that your code is incomplete without the GPL code. But you defined the parameters here. If you code is non functional without the GPL code, then you have created a derivative work of the GPL code, regardless of physical separation or separate distribution. That's right. And that is exactly what I am asking about. Good. Do you see that the extended code is a derivative of the original GPL code now? Perhaps I should rephrase the question. Make sure to read this, it is important! It better captures what I am trying to ask! Given an original program, and a GPL program I do not own, and then I interface my program with the GPL program so it is dependent on it, but it is also made in such a way that the GPL program and non-GPL program can be offered separately, the GPL parts offered under GPL and free, while the non-GPL part offered for a price. I got it. The separation is irrelavent. The key is then I interface my program with the GPL program so that it is dependent on it. In that case you do not have a separate program, but a derivative. You code then needs to be GPLed. And to clarify, your code would need to be licensed as GPL to anyone to whom you distribute it. It's a moot point if you do not distribute the modifications to anyone. Again, this confirms my understanding that it helps create new free code. 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. 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. 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. 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? 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. Now the one way that I have seen to get around this restriction is to create two completely separate programs
Re: GNU License, Again
You can reduce it to a semantic debate. But in the end the GPL is structured so that the only legal way for you to redistribute modified copies of GPL licensed code is to license the modifications under the GPL. There are several ways to come into compliance, this is one of them. Requesting the copyright holder to change the license is another. And a third is simply not using the GPL program. Mike wants to understand why the GPL is structured to have such compliance. I've seen your posts that states to go read this document and that document. I'd like to hear your summary of why the GPL is structured so that the easiest avenue to be in compliance with the license is to release modifications under the GPL. Why is the GPL structured so that GPL and non compatible GPL components cannot be combined into a distributable combined work? Because that would make the user give up their freedom, they can no longer use the combined (I assume you do not mean aggregated, but a deriviate) work, since it is not free anymore. I've given my take on why. I'd like to hear yours, or your interpretation of others' take on the subject as to why. I have tried to give my interpretation, maybe if you could tell me what you find unclear about it then I can make it clearer. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU License, Again
You can reduce it to a semantic debate. But in the end the GPL is structured so that the only legal way for you to redistribute modified copies of GPL licensed code is to license the modifications under the GPL. There are several ways to come into compliance, this is one of them. Requesting the copyright holder to change the license is another. And a third is simply not using the GPL program. Mike wants to understand why the GPL is structured to have such compliance. I've seen your posts that states to go read this document and that document. I'd like to hear your summary of why the GPL is structured so that the easiest avenue to be in compliance with the license is to release modifications under the GPL. Why is the GPL structured so that GPL and non compatible GPL components cannot be combined into a distributable combined work? Because that would make the user give up their freedom, they can no longer use the combined (I assume you do not mean aggregated, but a deriviate) work, since it is not free anymore. Meh, it is getting late; let me rephrase, and clarify. If you combine a free program and a non-free program, the deriviate of the free program is no longer free. So a users will lose their freedom to run/study/improve/distribute the program. The GPL sees that the user will always have the right to run, study, improve and distribute a program, no matter how you combine it with other works. It sees that the _GPL_program_ stays 100% free, not that it will result in more GPL code. If you think of it in terms of adding GPL incompatible code to a GPL program, it should be clearer. Since linking is indeed iffy waters, though it is the same principle, modifying a GPL program and creating a deriviate work. Is this a better explanation? ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU License, Again
On May 22, 3:00 pm, Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, it's to create *more* free code, right? Yes. It doesn't create anything, nobody is forced to release their work under the GPL. It only sees that software that is free, remains so. So then what do you call agreeing to release all the original code, then, not just the GPL code? Isn't that adding more code to the repository of free code, e.g. creating more free code? They could make it available (if at all) only under the default copyright terms, They could, but that would be immoral and unethical. I disagree to some extent. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU License, Again
On May 22, 2:14 pm, John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: mike3 writes: So, it's to create *more* free code, right? Yes. The FSF position is controversial. In my (nonlawyer's) opinion it would not stand up in court. However, the authors of GPL software are _giving_ you the right to use their code under the terms of the GPL. They don't have to do this. They could make it available (if at all) only under the default copyright terms, Why not comply with their wishes? Why all this effort to evade the obvious spirit of the license? If you don't like the terms why not write your own or get what you need elsewhere? I sure could do all of those things. It's just that I'm asking more about why the license is the way it is. If I don't want to GPL the code I'm using it in I'll just look for another option or write my own. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
