Re: GNU License, Again

[mike3]

On May 24, 1:52 am, "Alfred M. Szmidt" <a...@gnu.org> wrote:
>    >    But the free software is the GPL program -- how does it
>    >    protect free software by requiring that the non-GPL one become
>    >    GPL as well? The free software is only the GPL program --
>    >    which can function on it's own, unlike the non-GPL program,
>    >    and if all sources to said GPL program are divulged under GPL,
>    >    then how is it made any less free? It isn't!!!
>    >
>    > The end result is no longer free, since users are now prohibited
>    > from running, studying, improving and distributing the non-free
>    > program.  The GPL sees that this will never happen, and users are
>    > always guaranteed to always be free.
>
>    The _entire_ non-free program, of course -- but such a distribution
>    would still keep the originally free code free.
>
> If the originally free code is linked to a propietery program, then
> the result is not free.  The GPL sees that this will never happen.
>

But the originally free code is still made free. So I'm vindicated in
my understanding: It is designed to not only keep the original free
code free, but to make more code free.

>    >    So, it's to create *more* free code, right?
>    >
>    > It keeps code free, you are not required to accept the GPL.
>
>    But why do I have to release all of *my* code along with the GPLed
>    stuff?
>
> Because you agreed to it, you are free not to agree to do so, but then
> nothing gives you the right to distribute the GPLed program.  Please
> read the GPL, it is very clear.

I know, but the thing I'm going after is the reasonableness,
rationale,
or logic behind the license.