[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: GNU License, Again

From: Alfred M. Szmidt
Subject: Re: GNU License, Again
Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 10:05:15 +0200 (CEST)

   On May 21, 4:21 pm, David Kastrup <> wrote:
   > mike3 <> writes:
   > > He would not have to "bargain" for any copy of the GPL program.  And
   > > it (the GPL program) would not have a different license -- the only
   > > thing that has a different license is the non-GPL program.
   > But the non-GPL program has no use of its own.

   Oh, since it depends _vitally_ on the GPL one.

   > >> The GPL is intended to guarantee the freedom of the code itself
   > >> _and_ descendants.
   > > And the non-GPL code suddenly then becomes a "descendant" of the GPL
   > > code the instant it is made dependent on the GPL code in _any_ way,
   > > shape, or form?
   > No.  The linked executable containing both parts is the descendant.
   > And the court may very well decide that you are in effect performing
   > distribution of this descendant if your code has no other viable
   > purpose, and if there is no viable non-GPLed source.

   So then even if both are _not_ linked together, since one
   _vitally_ depends on the other, then it is considered a single
   program regardless of separate distribution of the components.

   It seems then that the GNU license is designed not just to protect
   a piece of free code's freedom, but to _create more free code_.

It is meant to protect free software so that free software stays free.
If you use a library, and a non-free program, the end result is not
free software, and the GPL protects us from people who wish to do
mischeif like that.

reply via email to

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