Re: Did I finally figure out the rationale?

[mike3]

On May 26, 1:32 pm, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote:
> mike3 <mike4...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > So, are any of these right? Did I finally get the drift? Were my
> > understandings finally corrrect at last?
>
> No.  The problem is that the GPLed program is licensed to you under
> conditions.  If you don't heed the conditions, you don't gain the
> right to redistribute the GPLed code.  The conditions include that you
> must not make the software part of something licensed differently.
>

I already know this. But have I understood the _rationale_ for _why_
it is that way, for WHY the conditions are the way they are? That's
what I am asking, and nobody seems to see this.

<snip stuff that, while informative, doesn't really address what I am
asking
about>
> There are laws (and those differ from countries) which state when you
> are no longer creating independent collections or aggregations, and
> when the resulting work has a form that requires specific permission
> from the copyright holder, permission that is not implied in the legal
> purchase of a single copy.
>
> So that is the borderline where the GPL claims to be effective, the
> borderline which was originally more or less intended to protect
> artistic integrity.
>
> In short: the GPL tries to do as much as it can to promote software
> under the constraints that mass redistribution of unmodified GPLed
> software should remain permitted without requiring contractual
> restrictions.
>
> In spite of its detractors, it does a pretty good job with that.
>

So then *what is the point* of specifically requiring the derivative
works to be made totally free, including the parts of code that
did not originate from the GPL program? Why must _those parts_
also be distributed free, if the point is just to keep the GPL program
free?

> --
> David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum