On Mon, 28 Feb 2022 at 13:34, Jonathan Wakely <jwak...@redhat.com> wrote: > > 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
Doh, s/GPL code/BSD code/ here. > 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.
