Re: GNU License, Again

[none]

In article <mailman.1206.1180050217.32220.gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org>,
Alfred M. Szmidt <ams@gnu.org> wrote:
>>  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 GPL.

>There are several ways to come into compliance, this is one of them.
>Requesting the copyright holder to change the license is another.  And
>a third is simply not using the GPL program.

Mike wants to understand why the GPL is structured to have such
compliance. I've seen your posts that states to go read this document
and that document. I'd like to hear your summary of why the GPL is
structured so that the easiest avenue to be in compliance with the
license is to release modifications under the GPL. Why is the GPL
structured so that GPL and non compatible GPL components cannot be
combined into a distributable combined work?

I've given my take on why. I'd like to hear yours, or your
interpretation of others' take on the subject as to why.

BAJ