gnu-misc-discuss
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: GNU License, Again


From: mike3
Subject: Re: GNU License, Again
Date: 22 May 2007 12:00:54 -0700
User-agent: G2/1.0

On May 22, 1:09 am, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <address@hidden> wrote:
> Seg, 2007-05-21 às 20:40 -0700, mike3 escreveu:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 21, 4:46 pm, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
> > > John Hasler <address@hidden> writes:
> > > > mike3 writes:
> > > >> A GPL program, which is NOT mine, and an original program ("my own"
> > > >> get it?, code) which IS mine.
>
> > > > The combination of your code and someone else's GPL code may only be
> > > > distributed under the terms of the GPL.  However, this does not
> > > > prevent you from seperately distributing the portion of the
> > > > combination that is entirely yours under any terms you see fit.
>
> > > This is not the FSF's reading of the law: otherwise the distinction
> > > between GPL and LGPL would make little sense, in particular in the
> > > presence of dynamic linking.
>
> > But what is the _rationale_ for this, then? What is the _rationale_
> > for you not being allowed to separately distribute the portion that
> > is entirely yours (ie. that you made)?
>
> You can separately distribute the portion, but it has to be under
> compatible terms (preferably the same) since the only effective form for
> your work to, well, work is to have the combined form.
>
> If not, the end result is that you remove the right to redistribute from
> your users, which is incompatible with the GNU GPL and thus not
> acceptable.
>

Even though the GPL program part though is also workable as a
separate program -- it's just the non-GPL one that isn't? So I am
right -- the point is to *create more free code*, not to just preserve
the freedom of one specific piece of code (which the distribution
I outlined above would, in fact, do.). This is the problem -- it's
this
philosophical idea that code _must_ be free. Did you know that
the Copyright Act makes it the _exclusive_ right of the author to
make and distribute copies? Although they can also permit others
to do so if they want, they are not required to do that, and you
seem to see this as bad, or "evil" somehow. Do you want the CA
amended, then? Why not go and lobby Congress for this, then?

> Rui
>
> --
> + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
> + Whatever you do will be insignificant,
> | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
> + So let's do it...?
>
>  signature.asc
> 1KDownload




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]