[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: GNU License, Again

From: none
Subject: Re: GNU License, Again
Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 18:19:57 -0500

In article <>,
Alfred M. Szmidt <> wrote:
>   > >Why? What is the purpose of making the license that way? Oh,
>   > >that's right -- to create MORE free code.
>   >
>   > Yeah. That's the purpose of the license. It's a pay it forward license.
>   Thank you for vindicating my understanding! I am pleased.
>Byron Jeff has misunderstood the goal of the license.


I don't misunderstand the goal of the license. In your other posts you
state that the GPL doesn't make your code free and that a judge can't
make you free your code. On the flip side, the license does state that
if you do not release your code under the GPL then you don't have the
right to distribute it. By the same token a judge can demand that you
not distribute your product.

You can reduce it to a semantic debate. But in the end the GPL is
structured so that the only legal way for you to redistribute modified
copies of GPL licensed code is to license the modifications under the

So feel free to explain exactly how the GPL is not designed to ensure
that distributed downstream modifications are not to be free. Which the
last time that I checked is exactly what Mike asked about.

>You are simply
>agreeing with a incorrect opinoin since it aligns with what you think
>it should be.  The GPL cannot create more code.

But it is structured such that any derivative code can only be released
under the GPL. That not being "created" is a semantic argument, not a
functional one.

>You are simply looking for a confirmation of a misunderstanding, from
>that you can deduce anything.

And you seem to be letting verbal semantics get in the way of meaningful
discussion. The guy wants to understand why the GPL is structured the
way that it is. Why can there not be balance and harmony between systems
built with a combination of GPLed and non-GPLed components?

I've made some attempts to explain why it doesn't work. While my
verbiage wouldn't necessarily stand legal muster, at least it is
verbiage that attempts to explain why the GPL is structured the way that
it is.

So instead of dogging my (or Mike's) words, try to explain to the guy why 
the system is structured the way that it is.


reply via email to

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