Re: GNU License, Again

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   On May 24, 2:01 am, "Alfred M. Szmidt" <a...@gnu.org> wrote:
   >    > Asked and answered. Your code does not function without the GPL
   >    > code in this scenario. Therefore it's a derivative of the GPL
   >    > code. So your code must also be distributed under the GPL.
   >    >
   >    > The disconnect that happens in this discussion everytime it comes
   >    > up (which BTW is about every other day) is thinking that if you
   >    > add something to the existing collective of code, that somehow
   >    > that it's not a part of that collective.
   >
   >    But it seems that some GNUtians just keep saying "it only keeps
   >    stuff that was already free, free", even though it does not -- it
   >    makes _more_ code free.
   >
   > Again, the GPL does not create anything.  You as the copyright holder
   > can only license something under a license, the GPL cannot.  The GPL
   > simply sees that free code stays free, nothing more, nothing less.
   > Nobody can force you to licnese your work on the GPL, not even a
   > judge.

   I did not say it "created" anything. I said it "made code
   free". That means it causes code to acquire the status of being
   free, not creating new code, at least not directly. It cause the
   code of whatever project the GPLed code was used in to become free.

It does not _cause_ anything, it cannot.  And "make" means "create".

   > And please do not call people names, it is rude.

   You mean the "GNUtian" thing? Well, alright, I'll drop it.

Thank you.

   > To keep things free, again, this was answered as well before.

   That does not jive! It is not simply "keeping" things free -- it is
   causing more things to become free. 

It doesn't cause anything.  A judge cannot force you to make your
software free software, neither can a license.

   I do not understand how requiring ADDITIONAL code be released
   if one wants to use the "free" code is *just* "keeping" code free --
   does not the quantity of free code in the world then increase?

Because the resulting work is a deriviate work of a free program.

Please, this has been explained to you several times over a course of
a week.  Now you are just wasting peoples time by being dense.

   If the only point is to keep code free, why demand that *additional*
   code be made free if one agrees to use the free code?

To keep code free.  If you take (unspecified license) work A and
non-free work B to create C, then C is not free, neither is A.  The
GPL sees that A, in all its dependencies remains free.