[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GNU License, Again
From: |
mike3 |
Subject: |
Re: GNU License, Again |
Date: |
25 May 2007 12:34:11 -0700 |
User-agent: |
G2/1.0 |
On May 24, 1:48 pm, "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.
>
> The original is no longer free, since it depends on a non-free work.
> The resulting work, a deriviate, is no longer free. And for the last
> time, the GPL cannot make anything free, only the copyright holder
> can.
How is the free code suddenly dependent on the non free work?
The non-free work is what's dependent on the free code, not
the other way around, in my scenario.
Saying the "GPL makes things free" is a quick way of saying that
"the GPL requires you to make things free if you want to use other
free things (specifically, GPLed free things) in a certain way". It's
just a lot shorter, and I am surprised you want such excruciating,
exacting detail. Most people could get the drift of what I'm saying.
We're obviously way off base with the understanding.
- Re: GNU License, Again, (continued)
- Re: GNU License, Again, mike3, 2007/05/23
- Message not available
- Re: GNU License, Again, mike3, 2007/05/23
- Re: GNU License, Again, John Hasler, 2007/05/23
- Re: GNU License, Again, mike3, 2007/05/24
- Re: GNU License, Again, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2007/05/24
- Message not available
- Re: GNU License, Again, mike3, 2007/05/24
- Re: GNU License, Again, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2007/05/24
- Re: GNU License, Again, Tyler Smith, 2007/05/24
- Message not available
- Re: GNU License, Again, Alexander Terekhov, 2007/05/25
- Message not available
- Re: GNU License, Again,
mike3 <=
- Re: GNU License, Again, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2007/05/25
- Message not available
- Re: GNU License, Again, Alexander Terekhov, 2007/05/25
- Message not available
- Re: GNU License, Again, mike3, 2007/05/25
- Message not available
- Re: GNU License, Again, David Kastrup, 2007/05/26
- Re: GNU License, Again, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2007/05/26
- Re: GNU License, Again, Alexander Terekhov, 2007/05/22
- Re: GNU License, Again, none, 2007/05/22
- Re: GNU License, Again, Alexander Terekhov, 2007/05/22
- Re: GNU License, Again, David Kastrup, 2007/05/22
- Re: GNU License, Again, Alexander Terekhov, 2007/05/22