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: 25 May 2007 14:44:42 -0700
User-agent: G2/1.0

On May 25, 1:56 pm, "Alfred M. Szmidt" <address@hidden> wrote:
>    > 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.
>
> It is a _deriviate_, that is how it is dependant.  It doesn't matter
> what depends on what.
>
> Imaging for a second that you have a work, to which you add some
> non-free code.  A user can no longer change the work as a whole, since
> parts of it are not free.  The GPL sees that an evil part cannot do
> such things.  It simply does not make anything free, it just sees that
> the a free program stays free.
>

Oh, becuase the modified program (even if the vast majority of said
"modified" program's code is not GPL to begin with -- it's still
considered
a "modified" program) cannot then be free, only the original program,
however the modified program is still considered a version of the
original
and therefore still possesses the attribute of being free if it still
has any
part of the original left, even if 99.99% of it's code has been
totally
changed and expanded as to be unrecognizable -- that 0.01% still means
it is the GPL program. Because the incorporation of GPL code _can_
be viewed as a modification of the original if we imagine the process
not as taking a piece from the GPL program and *adding* it to our
original work, but instead as *removing* all code except what we want
to use *from the GPL program*, and then adding in all our *original*
work,
even if this would be quite a stretch of the word "modify" in
colloquial
terms, which often does not mean a change to the majority of something
so as to make it nigh indistinguishable.

However, since we are discussing *source code* not functionality,
Even if the functionality and outward appearance of the program is
*totally* different from the GPL one if it still includes GPL code
"left over"
*in the source code* it is still a modified version. It is only
considered a
new program when *zero* GPL code remains and hence the GPL no
longer covers it (provided we haven't released the program already --
we're talking about during it's creation here.), as it is then
totally,
completely ours (ie. 100% original).

PS. I bet these non-colloquial, and very formalized and precise usages
of terms are probably why my statements about GPL licenses "creating"
free code were misunderstood so horribly -- you expected highly
exacting usage, not rough colloquials or "get the drift" type stuff,
but
instead take the word at exactly face value. There's nothing wrong
with this, it's just that I didn't know.

> You could equally argue here that the free program does not depend on
> the non-free parts, since the non-free parts only add functionality,
> but that is not relevant, since the _WHOLE_ work is what matters.
>

Again, see the comments I made above this. Are they correct? Did
I finally get _your_ drift, now?

>    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.
>
> It is the difference between pi being 3.14 and 4.  One is a good
> aproximation, the other is completely bogus.

But you demand that it be interpreted in such literalistic terms. If
you didn't do this, but well then I guess you were expecting
literal exacting terms, and I was giving non-literal, inexacting
colloquial ones, and I was expecting colloquial non-literal
terms and you were giving literal exacting ones. Sheesh...






reply via email to

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