[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: GNU licenses

From: mike4ty4
Subject: Re: GNU licenses
Date: 4 Sep 2006 18:34:39 -0700
User-agent: G2/0.2 wrote:
> schrieb:
> [...]
> > > You still have all the rights to _your_ original work.  You can take
> > > it and create a work from it that does not use any GNU code.  But you
> > > don't have all the rights to the combined work.
> > >
> >
> > I know. And it's that last sentence -- that you don't have all the
> > rights to the combined work, that ticks me off.
> Hey, GNUtians want you believe in something that might be true only
> in the GNU Republic. Uncopyrightable aggregations aside for a moment,
> you, as a sole author of a compilation (this term includes collective
> works), do have all the rights in compilation. That's one difference
> (among others) between compilations and derivative works. Your
> compilation copyright is totally independent from copyrights on
> constituent works.
> But in the GNU Republic, the copyr^Hleft act created fascinatingly
> fuzzy regime for software ("quanta" mismatch and all that, see
> below).  It's not about expression (as in literary works per Berne
> Convention which says that computer program works are to be
> protected as literary works) modulo the AFC test (to filter out
> unprotectable elements) like in the rest of the world. Rather, as
> bullshit rapper Moglen The dotCommunist has nicely put it (in
> slight disagreement with RMS):
> -----
> Q10c: Lets say I have a program that uses free libraries, which are...
> Richard Stallman: Well, linking them together like that is clearly
> combining them. The rules, based on the existing GPL, are too
> complicated for me to try to recite them to you. All I can say is, yes,
> the GPL makes conditions in that case.
> Q10d: That means any such use is a violation of the GPL?
> Richard Stallman: Some kinds may be permitted. That's why I'm saying it
> depends on details, very much. But linking components together is
> certainly combining them.

That does NOT make sense, he seems to be implying that linking together
GNU libraries is forbidden! Even if everything used in the project is
all GNU and the end product is released as GNU! Is this right?! This is



> Richard Stallman: Nor into the intentions of the GPL. Because, the
> point is, if we drew the line in the kind of clear way that programmers
> want, in terms of technical points, then it would be easy for somebody
> to evade the intention of the GPL just by taking that line as the
> instructions on how to do it.
> So, by making it so clear, in a mechanical sense, we would be
> undermining the goal.

So then he wants to keep it MUDDY so that people can get headaches
over it, make misconceptions, and fall all over the place. God, that is

> -----
> regards,
> alexander.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]