Re: GNU License, Again

[mike3]

On May 24, 7:02 pm, "Alfred M. Szmidt" <a...@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?
>
>    Because that would make the user give up their freedom, they can no
>    longer use the combined (I assume you do not mean aggregated, but a
>    deriviate) work, since it is not free anymore.
>
> Meh, it is getting late; let me rephrase, and clarify.
>
> If you combine a free program and a non-free program, the deriviate of
> the free program is no longer free.  So a users will lose their
> freedom to run/study/improve/distribute the program.  The GPL sees
> that the user will always have the right to run, study, improve and
> distribute a program, no matter how you combine it with other works.
> It sees that the _GPL_program_ stays 100% free, not that it will
> result in more GPL code.
>

The ENTIRE derivative work, no, but they would still be able to study
the free parts since those would be released free.

It sees that the GPL program stays 100% free, AND results in more
GPL code. Unless you want to argue that releasing all the formerly
non-GPL parts of the prog under the GPL is somehow not resulting
in more GPL code. Which is a total, utter absurdity. Does 2 = 1? I
guess it does.

Your explanation is like saying guns burn gunpowder. They do, but
they also fire bullets. You keep brushing over this issue and that is
why this discussion keeps going round and round in circles.

> If you think of it in terms of adding GPL incompatible code to a GPL
> program, it should be clearer.  Since linking is indeed iffy waters,
> though it is the same principle, modifying a GPL program and creating
> a deriviate work.
>
> Is this a better explanation?

It is a half explanation: it still does not address it
from the right perspective. You can't seem to see it. I don't
know why! Here, I repeat it AGAIN: It results in more GPL code
since the parts of the combined (derivative) work that were
***NOT*** GPL to begin with are required to become GPL, EVEN IF
THE ***MAJORITY*** OF SAID DERIV. WORK WAS NOT GPL.
If that is not an increase in quantity then I don't know what is.