I responded to Ladislav in private on this matter, but since Eric
raises a few points, I'll respond to those here. License discussion
is getting off-topic from the original subject; if we need to continue
this discussion, let's switch to a new subject line.
On 7/13/07, Eric Auer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi Ladislav,
>
> > > You _need_ to include a copy of the GNU GPL with a copy of your
> > > program. I don't see one here. This file is usually named COPYING.
>
> > But it has no sense. LPTtest is supposed to be a part of FreeDOS and
> > FreeDOS itself has own copy of COPYING. Why should every small binary
> > to have own copy of this license?
>
> I myself solve this by having a copy of the GNU GPL text on my
> homepage. It is indeed strange to force people to download binary
> and source and GPL in one zip, in particular for tools where the
> GPL and/or sources is way larger than the tool itself.
>
This is an inappropriate application of the GNU GPL. To make it very
clear which programs are under the GNU GPL and which are under a
different open source license (such as the MIT License {see FreeDOS
COMP or DEBUG} or the Artistic License {see FreeDOS EMM386}) it is
important to include your license terms with each program. It may
seem silly for every program to include its own COPYING file, but it
important we do this to define each program's open source license.
This is also explained at
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhyMustIInclude
>>>>>>>
Including a copy of the license with the work is vital so that
everyone who gets a copy of the program can know what his rights are.
It might be tempting to include a URL that refers to the license,
instead of the license itself. But you cannot be sure that the URL
will still be valid, five years or ten years from now. Twenty years
from now, URLs as we know them today may no longer exist.
The only way to make sure that people who have copies of the program
will continue to be able to see the license, despite all the changes
that will happen in the network, is to include a copy of the license
in the program.
<<<<<<<
and:
>>>>>>>
What if the work is not much longer than the license itself?
If a single program is that short, you may as well use a simple
all-permissive license for it, rather than the GNU GPL.
<<<<<<<
> > Maybe rather to spread it as public domain?
>
> Unfortunately, you cannot - your code is still only a TRANSLATION
> of Linux kernel code written in C with GPL license FIRST to Pascal
> and THEN to Assembly language, but it still has some smell of GPL
> sticking to it. As you have written several functions from scratch,
> and as I have written some other functions from scratch, WE as the
> authors of THOSE functions can re-publish those functions under a
> Public Domain license. Then you could rewrite (stupid but true) the
> rest of LPTTEST from scratch based on the ieee1284 specs or another
> similar howto and then the whole of LPTTEST can become Public Domain.
>
I see what you are saying, but you must be careful with it. It is
true that the author of a program may choose to re-release it under a
different license. The GNU GPL FAQ mentions this in a few places,
starting at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#HeardOtherLicense
But that statement only applies to releasing your code under a license
other than the GNU GPL. Releasing as public domain is a little
different. IANAL, but
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLUSGov mentions the core
issue of copyright: "... public domain, which means it is not
copyrighted. Since the GNU GPL is based on copyright, such a program
cannot be released under the GNU GPL. (It can still be free software,
however; a public domain program is free.)"
If you re-write everything (including the bits that were originally
derived from sources covered under the GNU GPL) and can demonstrate
that the new code was not influenced by the old source but instead
from a public HOWTO or the actual IEEE 1284 specs, then you can
release that new code under any license you want. You may even
choose to release it into the public domain.
Why did I say you should be careful? When you release into the public
domain, you *cannot* claim copyright on it. Public domain means it is
not copyrighted. So while you can say "written by Ladislav" or some
such, you cannot say "Copyright (c) 2007 Ladislav". Also, since it
enters the public domain, note that anyone may choose to re-use your
code in any program - someone may even choose to re-use your work to
create a proprietary program (i.e. without source code) and not give
you any of the credit.
>
> While I do like the GPL, in particular version 2, I also agree that
> it makes life unnecessarily complicated if you only write a quick
> tool of a kilobyte or two and do not really care if others recycle
> your code under whatever (maybe proprietary) license they like. So
> the really TINY tools from my collection are often Public Domain.
>
If you're writing some small tool that is quick and easy to write,
then I agree that the GNU GPL may not be appropriate. I've done this
with some of the code I've written: for small things, I usually use an
MIT license.
-jh
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
_______________________________________________
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
