[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 19:46:25 -0700
User-agent: G2/0.2

Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> > The GPL didn't infect, nor spoil the project.  The person who
>    > included code did (actually, he made a good thing, so one should
>    > say that he spoiled it or infected it). The GNU GPL does not have
>    > a soul, mind or can somehow act without a human.
>    So I'm right. Using the GPL code does 'spoil' the project.
> The GNU GPL did no such thing, the GNU GPL cannot `spoil' anything,
> since you or someone added the code, that someone did the act, not the
> GNU GPL.  The GNU GPL is not an AI life-form.
>    I know I don't HAVE to use the code, it's my choice (you keep
>    getting hung up on my "automatic", etc. phrasings!!!!), but I don't
>    understand the rationale for MAKING THE LICENSE THAT WAY, why it
>    demands the original code become GNU ***and be USELESS for non-GNU
>    projects without making them GNU***.
> Again, please stop confusing GNU projects with software licensed under
> the GNU GPL, they don't have to be the same thing.  The rationale for
> why the GNU GPL has been written as it has been written has already
> been explained to you several times: to protect the freedom of
> computer users.
> Nobody has demanded anything from you, if you wish to use GNU GPL code
> you must abide by the license.  If I wish to use your program, I must
> abide by your license.  Nobody demanded that you use code that is
> licensed under a particular license.

I am not saying anyone is coming out and demanding I release the code,
saying that the license requires it if I use the GPL code. What I want
to know
is the answer to the final point, given below.

>    It's that last part in asterisks that I hate. The distribution of
>    said combined work should have NO BEARING on ANY other works that
>    have NO 3rd-party code in them but are based on ORIGINAL code from
>    the combined work!
> The combined work is a deriviate work, you have used someone else
> material in it, which is licensed under a set of conditions.  This is
> how it is for all copyrighted works.

So then you are saying I _can't_ then use the stuff in the _original
of said combined work in other projects without making those GPL as
well, after releasing the combined work? Why must that be done if the
original parts are still original? How does that help protect the
freedom of
the user? Why can't the license make an exemption in that case because
it's still my original work. Oh that's right -- it creates more free
That's the point -- to bring about the demise of the closed-source
paradigm, right? (although not necessarily monetary gain from software,

because one can still charge money for a GPL program.)

reply via email to

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