[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GNU License, Again
From: |
mike3 |
Subject: |
Re: GNU License, Again |
Date: |
22 May 2007 12:05:12 -0700 |
User-agent: |
G2/1.0 |
On May 22, 2:05 am, "Alfred M. Szmidt" <a...@gnu.org> wrote:
> On May 21, 4:21 pm, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote:
> > mike3 <mike4...@yahoo.com> 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.
But the free software is the GPL program -- how does it protect
free software by requiring that the non-GPL one become GPL
as well? The free software is only the GPL program -- which
can function on it's own, unlike the non-GPL program, and if all
sources to said GPL program are divulged under GPL, then how
is it made any less free? It isn't!!!
So, it's to create *more* free code, right?
- Re: GNU License, Again, (continued)
- Re: GNU License, Again, mike3, 2007/05/21
- Re: GNU License, Again, David Kastrup, 2007/05/21
- Re: GNU License, Again, Alexander Terekhov, 2007/05/21
- Re: GNU License, Again, mike3, 2007/05/21
- Re: GNU License, Again, David Kastrup, 2007/05/21
- Re: GNU License, Again, Richard Tobin, 2007/05/21
- Re: GNU License, Again, mike3, 2007/05/21
- Re: GNU License, Again, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2007/05/22
- Message not available
- Re: GNU License, Again, Alexander Terekhov, 2007/05/22
- Message not available
- Re: GNU License, Again,
mike3 <=
- Re: GNU License, Again, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2007/05/22
- Re: GNU License, Again, John Hasler, 2007/05/22
- Re: GNU License, Again, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2007/05/22
- Re: GNU License, Again, David Kastrup, 2007/05/22
- Re: GNU License, Again, Alexander Terekhov, 2007/05/22
- Message not available
- Re: GNU License, Again, mike3, 2007/05/23
- Re: GNU License, Again, mike3, 2007/05/23
- Message not available
- Re: GNU License, Again, mike3, 2007/05/23
- Re: GNU License, Again, John Hasler, 2007/05/23
- Re: GNU License, Again, mike3, 2007/05/24