Re: GNU licenses

[mike4ty4]

David Kastrup wrote:
> mike4ty4@yahoo.com writes:
>
> > David Kastrup wrote:
> >> mike4ty4@yahoo.com writes:
> >>
> >> > Wei Mingzhi wrote:
> >> >> If you don't allow me using your code, then I don't allow you
> >> >> using our code too. That's just fair.
> >> >
> >> > I don't know. To me it seems like a way to slowly strip owners of
> >> > their rights to their original works.
> >>
> >> There is nothing "slow" involved here.  If you use any
> >> copyrightable part of GPL licensed software without negotiating a
> >> different license, you are bound by the full GPL.  As with any
> >> other license.
> >>
> >
> > As more code becomes GPL then the amount of non-GPL code shrinks,
>
> Code does not shrink.  GPLed code does not take independent code over.
> It just has its own growth laws.
>

I'm sorry but you seem to be missing the point. That under the license
using GPL code in your program means you are required to GPL
your whole program, therefore if one agrees to use GPL code in
their original work, then said original work must also become GPL
(due to the terms), thereby increasing the amount of GPL code by
one and decreasing the amount of non-GPL code by one.

Let's say I write a 50,000 line program, with no GPL code in it.
It's not GPL unless I want it to be. OK, now I decide to use 5 lines
of GPL code in it. Now I have to make the whole program GPL.
So I (reluctantly) do. The amount of GPLed code in the world
has now been incremented by one, and the amount of non-GPLed
code has now been decremented by one.

> > and since the agreement requires one to make all original works
> > containing GPL code GPL, it goes up fast. Of course it depends on
> > how many people use the GPL code, though.
>
> Not really.  It depends on how many people _extend_ the GPLed code,
> and then it also depends on how many of such changes actually get
> merged in a common code base.
>

But if I use 3 lines of GPLed code in a 300,000 line ORIGINAL program
is
that really an "extension" of the GPLed code? I don't think so -- the
ORIGINAL program would likely be RADICALLY different from the
GPL program.

> >> > Your code is your ORIGINAL WORK, and I don't see why I have to
> >> > have you make it free to me.
> >>
> >> You are free to license your _own_ software under any license you
> >> want, including giving them into the Public Domain.
> >>
> >
> > But *why* do you (or whoever came up with this GNU thing or
> > whatever) want to tell people to do things with _their_ code if they
> > use _your_ (GNU) code?
>
> Because it is fair.  You want to make use of my code, I want to make
> use of yours.  We both profit.
>

So then "public domain" is not fair, according to this claim, because
one can use public domain code in their works and do whatever they
want with the combined work (that's why it's called "public domain"
because it is un-controlled by copyright law)? According to you
"public domain" should be shunned. Am I right? If so, I want to say
that
I do not subscribe to that school of thought.

> > I know I can, and that's why I don't like GNU, because using the GNU
> > code "forces" you "automatically" (note the quotes -- if you defy
> > the "force", ie.  the terms, you are breaking the law, it's your
> > choice to use the code so it's not automatic in the sense you might
> > think I'm using) to make your originals that use it GNU. I just
> > don't understand why it's made that way!
>
> Because that profits everybody in the same way.
> 
> -- 
> David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum