On May 25, 6:44 pm, mike3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On May 24, 5:54 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED](none) (Byron Jeff) wrote: > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > > > mike3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >On May 22, 6:35 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED](none) (Byron Jeff) wrote: > > >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > > >> mike3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> >On May 21, 5:22 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED](none) (Byron Jeff) wrote: > > >> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > > ><snip> > > >> >Why? What is the purpose of making the license that way? Oh, that's > > >> >right -- to create MORE free code. > > >> Yeah. That's the purpose of the license. It's a pay it forward license. > > >Thank you for vindicating my understanding! I am pleased. > > ><cheers> > > > Mike, > > > After getting slapped around a bit by Alfred, I'd like to add that all > > of this is MHO from what I've read over the years as to why the GPL is > > structured the way it is. If you want real intent, you really need to > > talk to RMS and other folks at the FSF. > > How could I contact them? > > > > > >> >So then if I do NOT own the GPL program, but make it a vital unique- > > >> >functionality component, however I do NOT distribute it (the GPL > > >> >program, not the non-GPL one) in a non-GPL way and only distribute the > > >> >NON-GPL components of the program (ie. the ORIGINAL) ones in the > > >> >non-GPL way (since I own it I can do whatever the heck I please), then > > >> >it is still OK, since I'm still not trying to take over or restrict the > > >> >GPL program and the GPL program is still being distributed for free. > > >> No it not OK. Back to my point. If the GPL component is a unique and > > >> vital part of the system, then the code that you have written is > > >> incomplete without it. In other words, without the GPL code, you don't > > >> have a program. It follows then that your code is a derivative of the > > >> GPL program because it's non functioning without it. > > >> It needs to be GPLed. > > >> That's why the duplicate functionality is so important. If your code can > > >> be a complete functioning system without using the GPL program in any > > >> form (i.e. there is other code that duplicates the GPL functionality) > > >> then no claim can be made that your code is incomplete without the GPL > > >> code. > > >> But you defined the parameters here. If you code is non functional > > >> without the GPL code, then you have created a derivative work of the GPL > > >> code, regardless of physical separation or separate distribution. > > >That's right. And that is exactly what I am asking about. > > > Good. Do you see that the extended code is a derivative of the original > > GPL code now? > > I never denied this. > > > >> >Perhaps I should rephrase the question. Make sure to read this, it is > > >> >important! It better captures what I am trying to ask! Given an > > >> >original program, and a GPL program I do not own, and then I interface > > >> >my program with the GPL program so it is dependent on it, but it is > > >> >also made in such a way that the GPL program and non-GPL program can be > > >> >offered separately, the GPL parts offered under GPL and free, while the > > >> >non-GPL part offered for a price. > > >> I got it. The separation is irrelavent. The key is "then I interface my > > >> program with the GPL program so that it is dependent on it". In that > > >> case you do not have a separate program, but a derivative. You code then > > >> needs to be GPLed. > > > And to clarify, your code would need to be licensed as GPL to anyone > > to whom you distribute it. It's a moot point if you do not distribute > > the modifications to anyone. > > > >Again, this confirms my understanding that it helps create new > > >free code. > > > I think that's a stretch. Most of the folks here have been using the > > phrase "to ensure that free code remains free". I hear your thinking > > that if you start with a free component A and extend it to create a > > blended component A+B, where B is proprietary, that the blended > > component has no impact on the "freeness" of A. But it does. A+B can be > > structured so that it both improves upon A and is incompatible with A. > > It's a tactic called embrace and extend. Now you have A+B, which doesn't > > have the same rights as A. You must purchase B. You cannot modify/extend or > > redistribute B. You cannot fix B. A+B is now non free even though A is > > free. And A can easily be locked out of the usage loop by A+B. > > Why would one have to purchase B? A still retains it's original > functionality without B. You'd only need to purchase B if A > was somehow made dependent on B, which it is not. > > What if it _is_ compatible with A, then what? > > > But B cannot exist without A. So what has happened is that an originally > > free system has now been converted into a non free one. > > So therefore, B+A is not free, even though A is free and usable > independently of B. But since B+A contains A then A has been > made not free, even if A is distributed independently for free, > since a _version of A_ (namely that formed by A+B) is _not_ > free anymore. And only _one_ unfree version even if A is still > freely available is a hindrance to the freedom (because *A+B* > as a _single entity_ *regardless* of how it is distributed is _not_ > free). Is my understanding here correct? > > > The GPL points out that A+B is a derivative of A. It says that A+B must > > have the same rights as A. So A+B needs to be GPLed. > > > And that's what "to ensure that free code remains free" means. > > Because A+B is intrinsically free. The "free code that remains > free" is A+B, not just A. A+B has an intrinsic, inseparable > attribute of freedom by definition. > > > Now to appease Alfred, B's author can in fact release B under any > > license he/she sees fit. It's up to the author of A to call the > > copyright violation of the GPL out to the author of B and work something > > out. A judge can enjoin B's author from distrubuting the collective > > work, or B separately, though the judge cannot force B's author to GPL > > B. Is that enough legalese? > > So then even if A+B is released under GPL, a pure B copy, that > perhaps included an original component to replace the functionality > that A provides, or just without said functionality, can still be > released under a different license. > > > End the end what you want is too much of a slipperly slope. The only > > reason not to release B under the GPL is to keep downstream developers > > and users from having the same rights that B's author had to A. That > > diminishes the overall freeness of the system A+B. > > Oh, of the _system_. So the _system_ A+B is free from it's creation, > and what GPL is "keeping free" is that system, since from creation it > was free. > > > > > >> Now the one way that I have seen to get around this restriction is to > > >> create two completely separate programs that communicate with each other > > >> in a client-server fashion. In that case one can be GPLed and the other > > >> not. > > >> >If this is still not permitted, why not? What would be the rationale > > >> >for making the license that way? It does not seem to be to preserve the > > >> >freeness of the GPLed code, since the above scenario would still keep > > >> >it free, after all. > > >> Simple. You are benefitting from other's generosity without contributing > > >> yourself. Stallman and the FSF are clear in their political agenda that > > >> they want all code to be GPLed. So the license is written so that the > > >> price for using GPLed code (again regardless of physical separation of > > >> components) is that you must GPL your code. > > >So I am right, then. I am EXACTLY right. The other half of the > > >rationale *IS* to ensure that additional free code emerges, to ensure > > >that MORE code gets added to the repertoire of free code. However, why > > >couldn't one pay off the "debt" owed with a different piece of (but > > >still useful) code? What would be bad about a license designed to do > > >that? > > > The fact that folks downstream from you wouldn't have the same rights > > that you had. It would create a Balkanization of the code case that most > > GPL advocates detest. > > Because even though they had the same rights to the A part, they > would not have them to the B part, whereas I would have rights to > both the A and B parts. Is that what's being said? > > > Flip the question: everyone shared with you, why don't you want to share > > your contribution with everyone else? It's like Stone Soup: when > > everyone equally contributes, the whole collective benefits. But denying > > others the same access that you received to begin with diminishes the > > sharing value to the collective. > > Why couldn't I share a different contribution to pay for the code? > Oooh, maybe I could -- if the author agreed to such an alternative > set of terms. But would it be immoral to have a license that would > allow for any sort of code to be suitable "payment"? > > > >And I am right about it being a "price" too -- if you want to use > > >the free code you pay for that right with your own code instead > > >of with money. > > >Thanks again for the vindication. > > > That's my opinion. Nothing more, nothing less. > > > >> What you're missing in their agenda is not the "freeness" of their code, > > >> but the "freeness" of your extension to their code. By stipulating that > > >> the GPL code is a vital and unique aspect of your system, then your code > > >> is an extension of the GPL code. > > > >> Let me flip it to explain why this is important. Without this > > >> restriction developers would make GPL code effectively non free simply > > >> by taking a core GPL engine (remember vital and unique) and extending it > > >> with proprietary components until the functionality of the GPL core > > >> engine is virtually useless without the proprietary extensions. It would > > >> become a simple encapsulation of free code with non free code, making a > > >> non free system with a free core. A system that could not function > > >> without that free core, as stipulated by your scenario. It turns a > > >> initally free system into a non free one. > > > >How does it become virtually useless if the GPL core engine itself > > >remains unchanged? > > > Embrace and extend. Extend the original codebase in a proprietary > > fashion until it becomes useless. It replaces the free codebase with a > > non free codebase that is based upon the original free codebase. > > And even though the original free codebase still remains 100% intact, > the entire rest of the system is still not free so the system as a > whole > is not free even though it should be since it was built on a free > system. > It's innate freedom has been restricted. > > > >What I am talking about is a scenario where the GPL core itself remains > > >totally unchanged, BUT the original program is built to be dependent on > > >it, WITHOUT changing the GPL core itself. The functionality of it is > > >not "useless" because it would be distributed for free, alongside the > > >non free system, and so it's power could be tapped for other programs. > > >How is that making it "useless"? > > > Because the non free value add changes the dynamic of the system and the > > codebase. It preturbs the landscape of that system environment with > > added functionality that is not freely accessible. It creates unstable > > duplication as the free group of developers attempts to duplicate the > > functionality in the free space with a different codebase. > > Oh, because then if someone tries to modify the free part, since they > don't know what is going on in the non-free part they cannot be > assured > their modification will work. And even if they did but could not > modify > the non-free part then the amount of possible modifications they could > do would be restricted by the non-free nature of said part. > > > It's a hot mess. And it's a hot mess with a free core system. > > > You keep asking how A is impacted by A+B. A+B is more than A. But B is > > unavailable to the community. The community will create A+C, which is > > free, and may or may not be compatible with A+B. > > > Why would a community of developers of free software want to have more > > than one codebase? > > So then it helps keep everything unified together. > > > >> The GPL is viral. The viral nature of it is the same reason that > > >> networks need virus scanners, firewalls, and encryption. It's not for > > >> the majority of folks who want to play fair. It's for the small core of > > >> folks who will exploit every possible loophole for their own selfish > > >> benefit. > > >I'd be wondering then what your opinion would be on the morality > > >releasing 100% original software under a much looser "proprietary" > > >license than, say, Microsoft's, and with _no_ DRM, spywares, > > >"Trusted Computing" codes, etc. This question is not about combining > > >GPL stuff, this is a question about a philosophy and code of morals. > > > But how can you validate morals if you don't have access to the code? > > Proprietary systems invariably restrict access to the codebase. > > I'm talking about the morality of releasing my own software in said > type of way. Of course the morals depend on the person, but I'd > be curious as to what you'd say. > > > >You said the majority of folks want to play fair -- does this include > > >most software companies as well, even if they do not make GPL software? > > >I, for one, do not have much greed. > > > But once again there is always a segment of the population that will > > exploit the opportunity. So if you leave a license loophole available > > for them to exploit, they'll most likely do it. > > But if you're not greedy, then what's the problem with that little bit > of lost profit, anyway?> >> The LGPL is a license specifcally written to > address your issue. If the > > >> component you interface is LGPLed, then your code is yours to do as you > > >> see fit so long as you give the end user the ability to update the > > >> LGPLed side of the system. > > > >> Hope this helps, > > > >> BAJ > > > >Thank you for your vindications of my understanding, I am really > > >grateful for it. > > > You are welcome. > > > BAJ
Any response yet???? _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
