That's just silly.
On Wed, 20 May 1998, Lyno Sullivan wrote:
> I would appreciate criticism of the following post I made that addressed
> concerns among Java developers over applications that used components
> created under mixed licenses. I believe similar issues exist for
> multi-media composite digital objects. Thank you for any feedback.
> -------
> May 17, 1998
> To: "JFA License Discussion List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Fr: "Lyno Sullivan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Re: JFA Composite-license Release Strategy
>
> ABSTRACT
>
> This document explains a work-around strategy to the perceived un-usability
> of the GPL. The goal is that We, the Consumers and We, the Producers of
> Java related digital objects are not unduly hindered by the matter of mixed
> licensing product releases. Further, each Consumer and Producer must not be
> hindered in making their personal choice between the free and the non-free.
> Although I copyleft my work, I honor each Producer's right to make a
> different choice.
>
> This document is GPL copylefted so you know what that means. I am not
> trained in legal matters and, besides, GPL works such as this document do
> not come with a warranty.
>
> THE "PROBLEM" SECTION IN THE GPL
>
> GPL, Section 2 says
> "b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole
> or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to
> be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of
> this License."
>
> I believe this is the section that is raising the "problem" with the GPL.
> This is intended to prohibit non-free enterprises from releasing composite
> works that contain GPL copylefted works.
>
> DEFINITIONS
>
> I use the generic term "digital object" to refer to classes, data files,
> jpeg files, HTML files, etc. This usage is consistent with GPL, Section 0:
>
> 'The "Program", below, refers to any such program or work".
>
> RELEASE STRATEGY
>
> GPL, Section 2 says
> " In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program
> with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a
> storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the
> scope of this License."
>
> This is our "sure thing" loophole clause. Now, RMS might try to modify the
> GPL to close this loophole but I do not believe that he can do it without
> destroying the GPL. Besides, I can easily imagine that he contemplated
> exactly the loophole under discussion and would not be troubled by my
> attempt to exploit it.
>
> We apply this loophole in the following manner. We make the arbitrary
> definition that there is no single "work" in question but that we are
> actually releasing a "mere aggregation" of independent works. The fact
> that the Consumer gets minimal value from the mere aggregation of
> persistent works until the are combined at run-time into a single transient
> "work" is not a problem as I see it. In GPL, Section 0 says " Activities
> other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this
> License; they are outside its scope." The activity of intentional run-time
> aggregation is not covered by the GPL.
>
> Library A contains non-free copyrighted digital objects. Library B
> contains GPL copylefted digital objects. In so far as the GPL is
> concerned, we claim that Library B is defined as the total "work". Library
> A is a separate total "work". The combination of Library A and Library B
> is a "mere aggregation".
>
> I believe that I can put Library A and Library B into a single zip file
> provided that I say the right things in the README file. If push comes to
> shove I can always keep the Library zip files separate and my installation
> instructions can specify the Consumer process for creating a usable
> run-time. Java makes this pretty trivial and a JFA supplied installation
> utility can make it a no-brainer.
>
> TOPICS FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION
>
> Assuming that one object instantiates the run-time work, can this first
> object be under any license or must the startup object be licensed in some
> specific manner. I have a headache and don't want to think this one through.
>
> Do any of the other licenses prohibit this run-time aggragation? Since I
> am only interested in copyleft I leave this question to others.
>
> WHAT TO DO NOW
>
> If this strategy will work then JFA need merely establish clear procedures
> (hopefully automated) that are applied to create each release. As a
> service to its members, a Web page listing the licenses and analyzing the
> license choices would be helpful.
>
> --
> Copyright (c) 1998 Lyno Sullivan; this digital object is free and
> may be copied, modified and distributed under the GNU General
> Public License (GPL) at http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html and
> it comes with absolutely NO WARRANTY; mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Shawn Wallace -- AS220, Providence RI USA -- finger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
