Re: GNU License, Again

[mike3]

On May 24, 1:52 pm, "Alfred M. Szmidt" <a...@gnu.org> wrote:
>    On May 24, 2:01 am, "Alfred M. Szmidt" <a...@gnu.org> wrote:
>    >    > Asked and answered. Your code does not function without the GPL
>    >    > code in this scenario. Therefore it's a derivative of the GPL
>    >    > code. So your code must also be distributed under the GPL.
>    >    >
>    >    > The disconnect that happens in this discussion everytime it comes
>    >    > up (which BTW is about every other day) is thinking that if you
>    >    > add something to the existing collective of code, that somehow
>    >    > that it's not a part of that collective.
>    >
>    >    But it seems that some GNUtians just keep saying "it only keeps
>    >    stuff that was already free, free", even though it does not -- it
>    >    makes _more_ code free.
>    >
>    > Again, the GPL does not create anything.  You as the copyright holder
>    > can only license something under a license, the GPL cannot.  The GPL
>    > simply sees that free code stays free, nothing more, nothing less.
>    > Nobody can force you to licnese your work on the GPL, not even a
>    > judge.
>
>    I did not say it "created" anything. I said it "made code
>    free". That means it causes code to acquire the status of being
>    free, not creating new code, at least not directly. It cause the
>    code of whatever project the GPLed code was used in to become free.
>
> It does not _cause_ anything, it cannot.  And "make" means "create".
>

Well it requires one to make their code free if they want to use the
free code. How about that? That's what I have been trying to say!

>    > And please do not call people names, it is rude.
>
>    You mean the "GNUtian" thing? Well, alright, I'll drop it.
>
> Thank you.
>

You're welcome.

>    > To keep things free, again, this was answered as well before.
>
>    That does not jive! It is not simply "keeping" things free -- it is
>    causing more things to become free.
>
> It doesn't cause anything.  A judge cannot force you to make your
> software free software, neither can a license.
>

You're interpreting me too literally.

>    I do not understand how requiring ADDITIONAL code be released
>    if one wants to use the "free" code is *just* "keeping" code free --
>    does not the quantity of free code in the world then increase?
>
> Because the resulting work is a deriviate work of a free program.
>
> Please, this has been explained to you several times over a course of
> a week.  Now you are just wasting peoples time by being dense.
>

I know but it DOES NOT MAKE SENSE. See below.

>    If the only point is to keep code free, why demand that *additional*
>    code be made free if one agrees to use the free code?
>
> To keep code free.  If you take (unspecified license) work A and
> non-free work B to create C, then C is not free, neither is A.  The
> GPL sees that A, in all its dependencies remains free.

How is A still not free even if A is released under a free license
by the same person who authored C while C is not? A does not
depend on B, B depends on A, by the way.

Maybe answering _that_ question could help clear up the
misunderstanding.