[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: 5 Sep 2006 00:12:52 -0700
User-agent: G2/0.2

David Kastrup wrote:
> writes:
> > WOOHOO! I'm RIGHT! It *is* a "price", just not a monetary one.
> It can be a monetary one without problem.  GPLed software may sold for
> arbitrary amounts of money.  The only condition is that whatever
> amount of money gets asked, you get the GPLed licensed source code in
> return.

It does not matter. The point is the GNU license attaches a minimum
price, ie. the original parts of your combined work.

> > You don't have to pay the price, I know this -- but that also means
> > you don't get the product. If you want the product you have to pay
> > either the price given or negotiate a different one (which may be in
> > the form of money depending on what the author says). However, to me
> > this defeats both tenets of "free" software:
> >
> > 1. Free means FREEDOM as in freedom to do whatever you want
> > with the code. I should be able to license my combined works under
> > my own terms, although perhaps releasing the "free code" part
> > while keeping the rest as closed-source & proprietary as ever.
> You are confusing "free for the taking" with "free to remain free".
> The GPL guarantees that all variants and versions stay free in the
> same manner.

How does requiring anyone who uses the code in their works to
divulge the original part of their work (even if the vast majority of
the combined work IS original) as "free" help keep the 3rd- party
GNU code free?

> The GPL explicitly states:
>       To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid
>     anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the
>     rights.  These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities
>     for you if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify
>     it.
>       For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether
>     gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights
>     that you have.  You must make sure that they, too, receive or can
>     get the source code.  And you must show them these terms so they
>     know their rights.
>       We protect your rights with two steps: (1) copyright the
>     software, and (2) offer you this license which gives you legal
>     permission to copy, distribute and/or modify the software.
> It's not like this has not been told to you already.

Well I know what it says, I just do not quite agree with it. Also
100+ messages here some quite long and I don't feel like wading through
all that.

What I don't agree with is that I have to make the original part of
works GNU as well. I don't see how this helps

> > Hey! Maybe that's a way to modify the GNU thing! Maybe it should say
> > that you can keep your non-GNU combined work non-GNU, but include
> > and distribute the GNU code (or perhaps the whole GNU program the
> > code came from) used in it, and acknowledge it's use.
> The LGPL exists for special purposes.  You can be assured that the GNU
> project has quite a clear notion of what licenses it uses for what
> purposes.

Or, if I make my own 100% original work with nobody else's work in it
all I can license it under whatever terms I want, provided they do not
violate any applicable law, of course.

> > 2. Free as in no price.
> That was never an issue.  The price can even be money.

Well OK.

> > Of course, but I'm not trying to tell the author what to do -- I'm
> > pointing out what I see as a problem with this specific "course of
> > action".
> It is a problem for those who want to exploit free software without
> contributing to free software.  In short, for leeches.
> And it is designed to be a problem for those.

Oh, so it 'forces' one to contribute to the free software if they
to use the free code (ie. either you use the free code, divulge & GNU
or don't use it and keep _all_ your rights). Whew, I got it right.

> > Of course, and I never denied that. It's just that I don't agree
> > with "charging" someone for a "product" with their original
> > creations.
> Nobody is charging you for your original creation as long as it is
> your original creation and not deriving value from somebody else's.

But if it _does_ contain someone else's work, no matter how small,
then I have to "pay" the "charge" with the entire original remainder.
So I guess it means free as in freedom, and certainly _not_ free
as in free of charge -- as there IS a price, namely, the entirety of
the pure original components of a combined work. I don't see how
this guarantees that the free code used remains free, it seems to
be a way to induce the creation of additional free code. Which
is of course what you stated above.

So, summed up, the GPL says this:

You may use the GPLed code in your programs if you agree to
make the entire original program GPL as well (ie. "pay for the
code" with your original creation), no matter how small the code
fragment you use is (at least to the minimum amount that
copyright can apply to of course). Otherwise, don't do it.

Am I right? By the way, I can't believe how in these few days
over 100 messages have appeared here!

> -- 
> David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

reply via email to

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