[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: GNU License, Again

From: mike3
Subject: Re: GNU License, Again
Date: 26 May 2007 02:00:27 -0700
User-agent: G2/1.0

On May 26, 1:39 am, David Kastrup <> wrote:
> mike3 <> writes:
> > On May 24, 5:43 pm, "Alfred M. Szmidt" <> 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.
> > But that does not change the requirement for when you use GPL code,
> > which obviously shows more goals were in mind for the license than
> > simply "keeping free code free".
> Certainly.  The idea of GPL code is to create and foster a separate
> _pool_ of free software.  Richard Stallman does not agree with the
> extent of the powers that copyright law lends to every copyright owner
> in contrast to software users.  So he crafted the GPL in order to
> create an _environment_ and pool of free software that would rely on a
> notion of sharing to become compulsory between those that use it.
> The _growth_ and evolution of this pool is important: stagnation is
> not going to cut it much in a rapidly evolving landscape.  So the GPL
> os designed to extend to new work as far as it can, and that is
> dictated by the reach of copyright law and jurisdiction centered
> around derivatives and collections.  Going further than that would be
> imprudent since it would lead to court cases where parts of the
> license could be declared invalid.

This makes much more sense as rationale/explanation -- it not only
admits but explains why the license is designed so that one is
to increase the amount of GPL code in the world by releasing all
modifications or works that use GPL code under GPL, if they decide
to use said code and release said mods/works. Namely, the reason
is to keep the pool of GPL code growing and evolving, not just to
keep some scrap of GPL code free. This was what I suspected,
however all those seeming dodges or denials created nothing but
pure confusion.

> --
> David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

reply via email to

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