The GPL license in no way, shape, or form says you can supersede or bypass GPL with some other license. You are stating as fact something which you most definitely did not read from the license itself and that meets the definition for gaslighting, i.e. -- trying to make someone who has read the GPL into believing the GPL says something other than what they read.
Case in point: the GPL specifically says, "to 'convey' a work means any kind of propagation that enables other parties to make or receive copies" of a program, and since IUP is "conveying" about 13 GPL programs by including copies of those GPL programs and, even if it didn't include those copies, it has source code within the IUP program to specifically call those 13 GPL programs, they seem to be ignoring the GPL clause that "nothing other than this [GPL] License grants you permission to propagate or modify any covered work. These actions infringe copyright if you do not accept this License". That seems to tell me that if your code contains any calls to any GPL components, your entire code falls under the GPL license. In other words, by linking to GPL code, it supersedes any license you may think you have. And to prove to you I'm not BS'ing or gaslighting or making things up or switching the argument from one thing to another (strawman), here is a link to the license: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html Regards, Andres PS -- The etymology of the word gaslight, only describes how the word was ORIGINALLY used and not how the word is CURRENTLY used (and dictionaries are only supposed to define how words are currently defined, otherwise it is would be a dictionary that serves no purpose for communication). The current usage of the word is how the link I gave to you for the definition defined it. You can verify this is correct by reading current American newspapers where this word is currently often used. Therefore calling an argument a strawman argument or gaslighting is not "dismissive", it is descriptive of the type of argument. A dismissive argument would end the conversation but I'm keeping the conversation going by bringing the conversation back on topic. Any negative/positive connotations of these words would be due to personal interpretation and not objective fact. Since I don't know you intentions, I will reserve judgment on that for now. On 2020-06-08 at 12:02 PM, sur-behoffski <sur_behoff...@internode.on.net> wrote: [Reply is below original message -- not top-posted.] ----- Original Message ----- From: arobinso...@cox.net To: "sur-behoffski" <sur_behoff...@internode.on.net> Cc: Sent: Mon, 8 Jun 2020 06:44:07 -0700 Subject: Re[3]: [Iup-users] Source code license comments; IUP/CD/IM notes I very carefully read the license and it makes it appear that the bottom line is if you wrote code to specifically link to anything GNU/GPL, your entire project automatically falls under the GNU/GPL license (and so does anything that uses your project). It doesn't matter if the end users don't use those specific GNU/GPL functions or even if you don't ship any GNU/GPL components with your project, the fact that you wrote code to link to a specific GNU/GPL component makes your entire project a GNU/GPL project. Richard Stallman even suggested that IUP was in violation, and he is a subject matter expert on these matters. Anything else not from an official source or the result of a lawsuit or from a subject matter expert, would be gaslighting ... er, a strawman argument or BS or propaganda ... er, not at all reflective of the truth, and I am only interested in the pursuit of the truth. Regards, Andres [...] -------- (Start sur-behoffski's reply -- NOT top-posted!) -------- Bingo. We're on the same page now. I'm (very) happy. The earlier Tecgraf top-level copyright *appeared* to blanket-relicense everything as MIT/Permissive, which (of course) the various licenses in lower-down did not permit. Note, again, that the trigger is the point at which the combined sources are distributed/published: While the code remains strictly in-house, you can mix and match freely. One final comment: The film "Gaslight" was about a manipulative, sinister and powerful perpetrator using techniques to disorient a vulnerable victim... and, as such, the term "gaslighting" is not neutral -- it tends to imply sinister intent and/or motives being wielded by the recipient of the term: The term is fraught with danger, and should not be used (gas??)lightly, as it can be seen as inflammatory. "Strawman" is also negative/dismissive, although it does not imply such sinister motive -- the target may be simply using a dubious debating technique. Summing up: As my (deceased, dear) father said: "Given a contradiction between a person's words and their actions, the actions are the more reliable guide as to their state of mind." cheers, sur-behoffski (Brenton Hoff) programmer, Grouse Software
_______________________________________________ Iup-users mailing list Iup-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/iup-users
