Re: GPL question

[mike3]

On May 22, 1:54 pm, "Alfred M. Szmidt" <a...@gnu.org> wrote:
>    And therefore distributing them even separately through different
>    channels is considered the same as distributing them as a
>    whole. So, in other words, the following holds true: If I decide to
>    use GPL code in my program, I am agreeing to "pay for the code"
>    with my own code -- because then I am forced to release my own code
>    as GPL as well.  I can't even release it under another "free"
>    system, no, it must be UNDER THE GPL! What is the point of this?!
>
> To keep programs free.

Or, would it be rephrased as to *set* code free, because until
that GPL code got in there the code was NOT necessarily free
to begin with (standard copyright restrictions apply unless and
until the author waives them in a license, permission, etc.) but
once the author used the GPL code he/she is implicitly agreeing
to release the entirety of his/her program as free.

Because it doesn't just keep the GPL code free (distributing
only the GPL code any not the rest of the combined work would
still accomplish that) -- it leads to more code being free (the rest
of the combined work) that may not have been free to begin with.
If one doesn't want to set said code free then they shouldn't use
the GPL code.

That's the thing I've been driving at all this time -- because you
don't seem to see the difference between "keeping code free"
and "setting code free". The former implies already free code,
the latter implies code that was not free to begin with. GPL does
both. Not one or the other.