On Mon, 28 Feb 2022 at 13:03, Robert Elz <k...@munnari.oz.au> wrote: > > Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2022 10:28:20 +0000 > From: Jonathan Wakely <jwak...@redhat.com> > Message-ID: > <CACb0b4k8H78coiC24S-wpna3GaEO=vy37opu_1-vf_ybugg...@mail.gmail.com> > > | Nothing in any GNU licence prevents reading code. > > Not explicitly, no. But if I read some code, and then write > something similar, how would I ever prove I had not copied? > If I did, even subconsciiusky, and distributed my code, it > would be required to be GNU licensed wouldn't it? That is > something I will never do. I give away code I write unrestricted > (free). Not encunbered ir restricted.
How is that different from any code that isn't in the public domain? It's copyrighted either way, and you are bound by the terms of the licence. > > Hence, and especially here as the starting point was that I > might add code to the BSD realpath utility to make it more > like the coreutils version, and hence make it easier to > standardise, I simply cannot look at the GNU code or I would > not be able to distribute a modified BSD version under the > BSD licence. This is simply wrong. You can look at it. If you're unable to reimplement it without making it a derived work, then either you really *are* copying it, or it's not really copyrightable in the first place (e.g. it simply does something so trivial that there's only one way to do it, and nobody is going to be able to argue that you "copied" the original just because you did the same thing). > It is the stupid GPL which leads to this, if it was a free use > licence we could just distribute each other's code, or binaries, > rather than all this duplication, and we'd all be much better off. I don't see how BSD licences differ. You are required to retain the copyright holder's name and the licence text if you redisitribute source code. If you look at some BSD code, then implement something similar without copying the GPL code, but you don't put the original copyright holder's name on it, how do you prove you didn't copy it? How is this different from doing the same thing with GPL code? What in the GPL means your eyeballs are tainted, or what in the BSD licence says you don't need to conform to the licence if you copy code? Please stop calling it "stupid" based on an apparent misunderstanding of how copyright and licensing works. This discussion doesn't belong here, but wouldn't be necessary if you'd avoid the inflammatory language.
