[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: GPL traitor !

From: Hadron
Subject: Re: GPL traitor !
Date: Fri, 08 May 2009 16:04:51 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.110011 (No Gnus v0.11) Emacs/23.0.90 (gnu/linux)

Hyman Rosen <> writes:

> Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> Do you mean that if somebody adds functionality to GPL program, and
>> arranges for this new functionality to be called through a socket call
>> (substitute technically correct terms here) rather than a normal function
>> call, that somebody can remain within the terms of the GPL without
>> licensing his new stuff under the GPL, regardless of how intertwined the
>> new functionality is with the original program?  If so, I think you're
>> mistaken.  But please try and convince me otherwise.
> Yes, that's what I mean. Doing it by function call is OK as well.
> The only thing that forces the foreign code to come under the GPL
> is if the binary program is built as a statically linked whole
> incorporating the GPL and non-GPL code. It is that binding into a
> single work that makes the non-GPL portion fall under the "work as
> a whole" clause and requires that all of it be distributed under
> the GPL.
> You appear to believe that modifying the source of a GPLed program
> so that it invokes a function which is provided separately under a
> non-GPL license violates the GPL even when the modified program is
> distributed *as source*. Is that true? If so, then you are certainly
> incorrect, since copyright law contains no concept of a computer
> program "working". Copyright law doesn't consider functionality,
> just text, just expression.


Are you suggesting that the GPL is NOT "really easy" and "understandable
even by idiots" as Alan claimed?

Well, I guess I'm not so surprised.

The facts are these:

EVERY TIME I have seen a discussion of the GPL between two obviously
clever, technical and competent programmers/analysts it descends into
confusion and name calling. 

This observation leads me to believe that Alan is plain wrong when he
says its easy to understand. It blatantly is NOT easy.

In view of all the deadly computer viruses that have been spreading
lately, Weekend Update would like to remind you: when you link up to
another computer, you’re linking up to every computer that that
computer has ever linked up to. — Dennis Miller

reply via email to

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