Andy, we'll have to put an end to this discussion. It's going nowwhere.
You're summarily ignoring most of my points, going out of your way to
misapprehend others, etc.
Quoting Andy Sy ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>> Correction yet again: You don't "have to open source" anything. You
>> can only lawfully redistribute works derived from other people's
>> MPL-covered modules if you comply with the MPL source-access (and other)
>> provisions as to that module.
>
> But that essentially means the same thing as what I said! "Complying
> with MPL source-access provisions" means that you have to open source
> your mods (i.e. make them freely available).
No. Source-access provisions are triggered only upon _redistribution_.
I've had to make this correction too many times in a row, Andy. You are
being incurably sloppy, and consistently err on the side of making
source-code access provisions of copyleft licences seem more
far-reaching than they actually are. Errors once or twice on random
sides of the issue might be an accident. The same error over and over,
always with the same rhetorical effect, seems like an intentional
effect. Stop that.
> You're just couching it in annoying lawyer-ish.
Andy, if you're going to talk about software licensing, you're
automatically talking about copyright law. If you're not prepared to do
that, then you shouldn't address the subject.
> There is a reason why I didn't bother with explicitly bringing up the
> redistribution clause and it is that in most cases, usage of your
> modifications by others implies redistribution.
Ironically, you were talking about one of the _classic_ instances where
it often does not: databases.
Again, I've already pointed that fact out to you multiple times. Please
do not oblige me to do so again.
> I think this is an oversimplification. Surely one of the jobs of the
> FSF's lawyers would be to proactive lobby for interpretations of the
> GPL in cases where the interpretation is not yet clear.
Irrelevant to court judgements, for reasons already cited.
> Surely you can't say RMS did not have a strong hand in influencing how
> the GPL was interpreted (by the author of CLISP) in this case.
Yes, I most certainly do say that.
Linking against GNU Readline creates a licence conflict, and
redistributing that derivative work without explicit permission from the
GNU Readline copyright owner is copyright violation. The authors of
CLISP chose to eliminate this violation by GPLing CLISP. In other
cases, such as ncftp, the author elects to cease perpetuating the
violation, and write a replacement library under terms he prefers.
All of these considerations are dictated by the licence terms and
copyright law. None by the views of Richard M. Stallman.
> Not everything ends up getting decided in the courts.
That is true, but not relevant to the question. Authors such as those
of CLISP and ncftp face objective legal problems, which _could_ be
decided by the courts. Since they correctly estimated that they would
lose quickly (if for no other reason), they took corrective action to
avoid that outcome.
> What I asserted was that a _GPL-compatible license_ cannot be
> considered a _commercial license_. I explain why below.
I'm sorry, but you aren't listening. If something is the subject of
commerce, it is by definition commercial. Since software under any
licence whatsoever can be the object of commerce, the term "commercial
licence" doesn't really mean anything.
> I understood it immediately as meaning a license you have to pay for
> in order to take advantage of the rights (and absence of obligations
> - such as the need to open up your source) it grants. Simple, no?
Simple, and wrong.
Counter-example: I just wrote a one-line shell script, have declared it
to be under the GPL, have given it to nobody whatsoever to date, and am
willing to let you have a copy under the GPL _only_ if you send me US $1.
Please note that there's no other way for you to get a copy of my shell
script. So, I guess the GPL is a "commercial" licence.
Phftttt!
> Similarly, I think most people do not find it hard to figure out what
> "closed source" means. It simply is a product whose source is not
> made available under any circumstance.
Other people would assume it _also_ includes code you can inspect but have
no other right to ("closed" in the sense of look-but-don't-touch, i.e.,
not open to independent development).
> I _was_ specific. Check my post again, the phrase I used was:
> 'copy-and-paste source code FROM A GPL'ED CODE BASE'
I believe that was from an _earlier_ message than the one I was replying
to.
>> Ascribing motives to licences _themselves_ is passing over to the
>> transrational.
>
> LOL! Of course when one says 'the GPL's goal/agenda' one means the
> *reasons* behind why it was created in the first place.
Which are completely irrelevant to discussions of what the licences
_do_. QED.
Now, please. Give it a rest. You are wasting your time and mine.
--
Cheers, "Please return all dogmas to their orthodox positions."
Rick Moen -- Brad Johnson, in r.a.sf.w.r-j
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_
Philippine Linux Users Group. Web site and archives at http://plug.linux.org.ph
To leave: send "unsubscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fully Searchable Archives With Friendly Web Interface at http://marc.free.net.ph
To subscribe to the Linux Newbies' List: send "subscribe" in the body to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
