David Kastrup wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > I've been wondering about the GNU software and documentation license. > > For one thing, although the goals are decent, I don't like what I > > percieve as it's "viral" nature. > > Too bad, since it is that which ensures the status. > > > Furthermore, does this actually exist, anyway? For example, if I > > write a 1,000 page book, and take ONE PARAGRAPH of a GNU document > > and stick it in, does this mean all 1,000 pages of MY OWN ORIGINAL > > WORK are all suddenly GNU, or can I just mark that 1 paragraph as > > such, while keeping copyright to my _original work_? > > Nothing ever is "all suddenly GNU". Everything written by yourself is > yours to license at your choice. Like everything written by some GNU > maintainer is his to license at his choice. And his choice is "if you > make this or parts of it a part of something else, I grant you > permission for that only if you license your stuff under the GPL." > > You are free to decide _not_ to license your stuff under the GPL, but > then you have no business sticking GPLed software in it. If you do, > this does not make your software GPLed (this never happens > automatically), but it means that you are breaking the license of the > stuff you use, and you can be sued to amend this. It will usually be > your choice whether you amend by removing the GPLed part, or by > complying to the license. > > > If it's the former, then it sucks. I'm sorry, but it does. > > Sure. Of course it sucks. It is the purpose of _any_ regulation or > law or license to make it suck when you want to go against the > license. > > > Same thing goes for software. If I include 2 lines of GNU code (yes, > > just two lines) in my big fat 300,000 line program, does that mean > > all the remaining 299,998 lines of original work are suddenly GNU? > > No. It means that you are doing something with the 2 lines of GNU > code for which you have no permission. Now concerning 2 lines, you > actually might not need permission (they might well be under the > "trivial" threshold after which copyright law actually starts being > relevant). But if you do, you have the choices of either complying, > or taking the 2 lines out, or negotiating an individual license with > the author of the 2 lines so that you don't need to GPL your stuff. > > But the one thing that you can't do is take his material and do with > it as you like without heeding its license. >
But why forbid it? It's like you either GNU _EVERYTHING_ not just that little code or book FRAGMENT or NONE AT ALL. WHY is this done?! Here's something else: if I use a GNU library with my non- GNU program, does this mean that I have to GNU the whole thing or I'm breaking the license? > > Or could I just release the two lines and keep the majority of my > > program closed-source or under a different license? If it's the > > former, it sucks too. If it's the latter, it's OK. > > Sure it sucks. It is intended to suck. > > > So, is this "viral" thing true? If so, I don't like it. Free > > software, free documentation, "free" stuff is a good idea, but this > > implementation of it, sadly, is not. It's creating "open" stuff by > > FORCE, and that's not acceptable (and it's not really "open" either > > since you've got to GNU and "open up" your own code (GNU definition > > of "open it up") even if you don't like the GNU method!!!). The idea > > of keeping the free code free is good, but the idea of FORCING a > > person to "free" their ORIGINAL WORK is not. > > It is the only thing that works on a large scale, seemingly. > I don't know. It doesn't seem like a good deal to me... why do you want to make other people's code free as a "price" for using "free" code? > -- > David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
