[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
6 Aug 2006 13:05:30 -0700
I've been wondering about the GNU software and documentation license.
For one thing, although the goals are decent, I don't like what I
percieve as it's "viral" nature. Furthermore, does this actually exist,
anyway? For example, if I write a 1,000 page book, and take ONE
PARAGRAPH of a GNU document and stick it in, does this mean all 1,000
pages of MY OWN ORIGINAL WORK are all suddenly GNU, or can I just mark
that 1 paragraph as such, while keeping copyright to my _original
work_? If it's the former, then it sucks. I'm sorry, but it does. If
it's the latter, than it's OK.
Same thing goes for software. If I include 2 lines of GNU code (yes,
just two lines) in my big fat 300,000 line program, does that mean all
the remaining 299,998 lines of original work are suddenly GNU? Or could
I just release the two lines and keep the majority of my program
closed-source or under a different license? If it's the former, it
sucks too. If it's the latter, it's OK.
So, is this "viral" thing true? If so, I don't like it. Free software,
free documentation, "free" stuff is a good idea, but this
implementation of it, sadly, is not. It's creating "open" stuff by
FORCE, and that's not acceptable (and it's not really "open" either
since you've got to GNU and "open up" your own code (GNU definition of
"open it up") even if you don't like the GNU method!!!). The idea of
keeping the free code free is good, but the idea of FORCING a person to
"free" their ORIGINAL WORK is not.
Please give me some direct answers to these questions. Thanks.
- GNU licenses,