On 13-Apr-07, at 9:51 AM, Al Hopper wrote:
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, Toby Thain wrote:
On 12-Apr-07, at 11:51 PM, Rich Teer wrote:
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007, Toby Thain wrote:
Those who promulgate the tag for whatever motive - often agencies
of Microsoft
- have all foundered on the simple fact that the GPL applies ONLY
to MY code
as licensor (*and modifications thereto*); it has absolutely
nothing to say
about what you do with YOUR code.
PLease correct me if I'm wrong: my understanding is that the
granularity
of the GPL is the "project"; all source files that make up that
project
must be GPLed. Is that correct? I believe so, and the FSF's GPL
FAQ
would seem to agree with me*:
Q: If I add a module to a GPL-covered program, do I have to use the
GPL as the
license for my module?
A: The GPL says that the whole combined program has to be released
under the GPL.
So your module has to be available for use under the GPL.
It says right there that if I want to add a new module (file/
whatever) to
a GPLed program, I MUST USE THE GPL FOR MY CODE. I have no choice
in this
matter: the GPL has "spread" to my module, and can therefore be
described
as being viral in nature. QED.
IMHO, this is a faulty conclusion.
No Toby - you have it wrong. GPLv2 is viral in nature and designed
by its
creators to be viral.
"You keep using that word..."
You can always *not use* MY code. The GPL applies, ab initio, only to
MY code.
* See http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-
faq.html#GPLModuleLicense
The GPL, which as you know is built on copyright, is a purely
voluntary
license - revealing the analogy to be worthless and the claim pure
FUD.
But it's not a voluntary license. If I want to contribute to a
GPLed project,
The interesting use case of "contributing", and I think the one that
spurred the creation of the GPL, is "I use this but I need to
customise it a bit". In this situation it's quite reasonable that you
would abide by the conditions I've chosen for the stuff you're using.
No .. GPLv2 is designed to force someone who wishes to ship a
product in
binary form to publish the source code for it.
It forces someone who wishes to ship MY (licensor's) product in
binary form to give their users the same rights they had. It does not
force anyone to do anything with THEIR product. This is what you
'viral' people keep missing.
Of if someone wishes to
keep one or more modules of *their* code secret, because it
provides them
with a commercial advantage that they don't wish to share with their
competition, GPLv2 forces them to opensource the entire work. It's
viral
in nature, because it "infects" everything it touches - regardless
of the
developers/owners intentions.
...
But this is OT enough by now.
Agreed.
Al Hopper Logical Approach Inc, Plano, TX. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Voice: 972.379.2133 Fax: 972.379.2134 Timezone: US CDT
OpenSolaris.Org Community Advisory Board (CAB) Member - Apr 2005
OpenSolaris Governing Board (OGB) Member - Feb 2006 to Mar 2007
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
