[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: what is the current status of GPL v3
From: |
David Kastrup |
Subject: |
Re: what is the current status of GPL v3 |
Date: |
Thu, 18 May 2006 13:37:08 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
"Alfred M. Szmidt" <ams@gnu.org> writes:
> These are improved versions of programs originally from BSD.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> And this means that GNU inetutils cannot be part of the GNU system?
> Amazing.
Indeed, another strawmen. Of course a compilation consists of parts.
Do you still have a clue what you are arguing about?
> > Emacs was to a significant degreed developed by third parties, I
> > guess it too isn't part of the GNU system.
>
> Is is a component of a compilation, but as such is a single entity
> (with very few exceptions (c) FSF due to the practice of copyright
> assignments) and has been developed mostly as a single entity.
> However, there are subsystems (like calc) which have historically
> been distributed as separate entities. So parts of Emacs can be
> considered aggregated. There is no necessity for drawing a line
> here, however, since copyright and license for the components in
> distribution rest with FSF and the GPL.
>
> Copyright doesn't state if something is or isn't part of a operating
> system.
You were arguing against GNU systems being compilations. And that's
an issue defined by copyright law.
> > Nor is GCC, which is being developed by RedHat, and then we have
> > the GNU C library which also is being developed by RedHat.
>
> It sure is part of any GNU system, in the form of an aggregation
> (in the case of GCC). The C library, however, is linked with the
> executables, and that exceeds mere aggregation. The C library,
> however, is licensed under the LGPL.
>
> The license and copyright have nothing to do with this. The GNU C
> Library is part of the GNU system, doesn't matter if you do not like
> it or not.
Another straw man. Of course, a compilation has parts, and the C
library was not a topic of discussion, anyway.
> Looks like you again confused what this thread is supposed to be
> about. You objected against GNU systems being a compilation, and
> that concerns its copyright situation and nothing else.
>
> No, it doesn't. You can have a single entity with several copyright
> holders. Like Linux, or is Linux also a compilation according to
> you?
But the "operating system" is not a single entity. You can take, for
example, the ftp client and compile and use it under a different
operating system. That's what the autoconf stuff is all about:
portability. And something which is portable and maintainable as a
separate entity is a component of a compilation.
> > GCC isn't fully copyrighted by the FSF, neither are many
> > projects, yet they are GNU projects, then there are non-GNU
> > projects which are part of the GNU system.
>
> Which, for that reason, is mostly to be considered a compilation
> with regard to the copyright situation.
>
> Nope, it isn't. Please read up on what a compilation is, and please
> stop confusing compilations with the GNU system. Next thing we know
> is that OpenBSD isn't _really_ a single entity; a operating system,
> but a compilation of totally disjoint tools that Theo thought was nice
> to publish.
With regard to copyright law, of course it is a compilation. For
example, it comes with gcc, without this putting the whole of OpenBSD
under the GPL.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
- Re: what is the current status of GPL v3, (continued)
- Message not available
- Re: what is the current status of GPL v3, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/05/17
- Re: what is the current status of GPL v3, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2006/05/18
- Message not available
- Re: what is the current status of GPL v3, David Kastrup, 2006/05/18
- Re: what is the current status of GPL v3, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2006/05/18
- Re: what is the current status of GPL v3, David Kastrup, 2006/05/18
- Re: what is the current status of GPL v3, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2006/05/18
- Re: what is the current status of GPL v3, David Kastrup, 2006/05/18
- Re: what is the current status of GPL v3, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2006/05/18
- Re: what is the current status of GPL v3, David Kastrup, 2006/05/18
- Re: what is the current status of GPL v3, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2006/05/18
- Re: what is the current status of GPL v3,
David Kastrup <=
- Re: what is the current status of GPL v3, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2006/05/18
- Message not available
- Re: what is the current status of GPL v3, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/05/18
- Message not available
- Re: what is the current status of GPL v3, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/05/18
- Re: what is the current status of GPL v3, David Kastrup, 2006/05/18
- Re: what is the current status of GPL v3, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/05/18
- Re: what is the current status of GPL v3, David Kastrup, 2006/05/18
- Re: what is the current status of GPL v3, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/05/18
- Re: what is the current status of GPL v3, David Kastrup, 2006/05/18
- Re: what is the current status of GPL v3, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/05/18
- Re: what is the current status of GPL v3, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2006/05/18