In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Let's say I write a 50,000 line program, with no GPL code in it. >It's not GPL unless I want it to be. OK, now I decide to use 5 lines >of GPL code in it. Now I have to make the whole program GPL. >So I (reluctantly) do.
I don't understand that "so". If you don't want to GPL your program, why on earth would you incorporate those 5 lines? If you can write the other 50,000, surely you can write those 5. Your scenario is so unlikely as to be absurd. >But if I use 3 lines of GPLed code in a 300,000 line ORIGINAL program >is that really an "extension" of the GPLed code? If those 3 lines are copyrightable (many 3-line bits of code aren't, because they're so obvious), then you have produced a derivative work. That was your choice: if you don't like it, don't do it. >I don't think so -- the >ORIGINAL program would likely be RADICALLY different from the >GPL program. Being radically different doesn't stop something from being a derivative work. >So then "public domain" is not fair, according to this claim, because >one can use public domain code in their works and do whatever they >want with the combined work (that's why it's called "public domain" >because it is un-controlled by copyright law)? If you *don't mind your work being used in this way*, then it's perfectly fair. You write the code, you get to decide the licence on whatever grounds you like. -- Richard _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
