On Tuesday, November 29, 2011 8:25 AM, "Hugo Roy" <[email protected]> wrote: > I am talking of the freedom to distribute copies of the program. > If you restrict that freedom to specific people that is clearly > not free software, and that is totally consistent with RMS' l, > definition as well.
The GPL provides conditions for distribution, when those conditions are not met -- you can't distribute a modified copy. Hence, the GPL prevents distribution. > "tightly integrating" looks like it's a derivative > work. I don't think this is possible. Both would have > to be under GPL terms. (That's not a discrimination!) Zeek does have the right to construct his derived work that combines the GPL and non-free work. > He can't put his work under the GPL… and this is true > to anybody. He cannot publish his modifications because > he cannot put John's non-free under the GPL. Since Zeek can't distribute John's work under the GPL or a compatible license, he doesn't meet the distribution criteria to be a distributable modification of Lisa's work. > The GPL isn't preventing distribution. If the GPL was > preventing distribution, it would mean in the first > place that Zeek has a legal right to distribute a work > of authorship. Ok. So this is the crux of why GPL doesn't discriminate; since the GPL didn't provide the right of distribution to Zeek, there isn't any right lost, and hence no discrimination. > This right "comes" from copyright (in the US), but in > this precise example it would be a either: > * a violation of copyright (John's copyright) if you > pretend it's under GPL (or GPL-compatible license) > * a violation of the GNU GPL (Lisa's copyright) if > you distribute with the non-free library > > There are no discrimination by the GPL: nobody is > allowed to get this program, because Zeek has no right > under John's license to publish any derivative work. Oh, let's suppose John's license provides the rights to make derivative works then, provided that his library's license (say with an advertising clause) is incorporated. > That's where the non-free comes from; not the GPL. Well, I think this is a terminology / perspective issue. ... So, according to this logic, the Free Platform License described (as derived from GPLv3, without Affero) would also not discriminate against platform users. Since those who would wish to distribute FPL licensed software for use specifically with a non-free platform have no previous rights to do so. Hence, there is no discrimination with this approach. Correct? Clark -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
