Le mardi 29 novembre 2011 à 10:24 -0500, Clark C. Evans a écrit : > 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.
When the conditions are not met. But those conditions aren't targeting anyone specifically, or forbidding any group. These conditions are not discriminatory. (Please don't say they are discriminatory against people who don't want to comply with the license by releasing it as proprietary software, it doesn't make sense. It's like saying the law is discriminatory against people who don't respect it.) > > "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. GPLv3 5. or the GPLv2 2. say the opposite. Or did I misunderstand what you mean by "tightly integrating" GPL and non-free software? > > 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. I don't understand. Zeek has a right to distribute Lisa's work, he also has a right to modify and distribute the modifications. It's Zeek who choses to use a non-free library and to make it work with Lisa's modified 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. The GPL didn't provide the right of distributing modifications of the non-free library. Zeek does not have such a right. But nonetheless, he decided to use it and integrate with a GPL work, which requires to respect some conditions that aren't met. > > 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. If it's compatible with the conditions of the GPL, why not. (But then I don't think the advertising clause would make this easy, quite the contrary). It's not new that copyleft licences create problems of compatibility. But to create a license with the purpose of being discriminatory is another matter (and I don't think the licence text you provided manages to achieve that; it's just creating another incompatible licence with conditions hard to respect that could indeed make life hard for a lot of people, including those you want to make life hard) -- Hugo Roy im: [email protected] French Coordinator mobile: +33.6 0874 1341 The Free Software Foundation Europe works to create general understanding and support for software freedom in politics, law, business and society. Become a Fellow http://www.fsfe.org/join La Free Software Foundation Europe œuvre à la compréhension et au soutien de la liberté logicielle en politique, en droit, en économie et en société. Rejoignez la Fellowship http://www.fsfe.org/join -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
