Re: GNU License, Again

[mike3]

On May 24, 1:48 pm, "Alfred M. Szmidt" <a...@gnu.org> wrote:
>    >    >    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!!!
>    >    >
>    >    > The end result is no longer free, since users are now
>    >    > prohibited from running, studying, improving and
>    >    > distributing the non-free program.  The GPL sees that this
>    >    > will never happen, and users are always guaranteed to always
>    >    > be free.
>    >
>    >    The _entire_ non-free program, of course -- but such a
>    >    distribution would still keep the originally free code free.
>    >
>    > If the originally free code is linked to a propietery program,
>    > then the result is not free.  The GPL sees that this will never
>    > happen.
>
>    But the originally free code is still made free. So I'm vindicated
>    in my understanding: It is designed to not only keep the original
>    free code free, but to make more code free.
>
> The original is no longer free, since it depends on a non-free work.
> The resulting work, a deriviate, is no longer free.  And for the last
> time, the GPL cannot make anything free, only the copyright holder
> can.

How is the free code suddenly dependent on the non free work?
The non-free work is what's dependent on the free code, not
the other way around, in my scenario.

Saying the "GPL makes things free" is a quick way of saying that
"the GPL requires you to make things free if you want to use other
free things (specifically, GPLed free things) in a certain way". It's
just a lot shorter, and I am surprised you want such excruciating,
exacting detail. Most people could get the drift of what I'm saying.

We're obviously way off base with the understanding.