On Tuesday 03 July 2007 12:09, Michel Fodje wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-07-03 at 10:54 -0700, Ethan Merritt wrote:
> >
> > They do have the same rights. They can use it, modify it, and
> > redistribute it. They may or may not be permitted to distribute
> > 3rd party libraries with it, but that was true of the original
> > distributor also.
>
> The specific rights that must be transferred with the software are:
> 1 - The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0)
> 2 - The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your
> needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
> 3 - The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor
> (freedom 2).
> 4 - The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to
> the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to
> the source code is a precondition for this.
Yes. That is a more complete statement of rights under the GPL.
Please note, however, that "the source code" to which you are
guaranteed access is the source code to the GPL-ed program itself,
not to pieces of the operating environment it runs in.
> If you distribute software that, in whole or in part does not convey all
> those freedoms, it is a violation of the GPL if you use GPL code in it.
This is an overstatement, or could be mis-read as an overstatement.
You can distribute a mixture of GPL and non-GPL code together.
Any random linux distribution is an example of this. What you cannot
do is mix GPL and non-GPL code within a single program. This sounds
clear until the lawyers start arguing about what is or is not a single
program [*]. At this point opinions and arguments and legal precedents
diverge. The divergence in opinion is particularly notable with regard
to libraries.
Ethan
[*] Please note that "single program" is my own imprecise term,
not a specific legal wording that is under dispute.
--
Ethan A Merritt
