On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 11:57 AM, Joerg Schilling
<Joerg.Schilling@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
>> You can't distribute GPLd programs unless 'the work as a whole' is
>> covered by the GPL. There can't be a distinction between binary and
>> source since one is derived from the other.
>
> Now you just need to understand what "as a whole" means....
Apparently we live in different universes. Or at least countries -
where meanings are relative. But it doesn't matter how either of us
understand it, what matters are how the legal system understands it in
our native countries.
> Try to be clever and try to inform yourself before sending more fals claims as
> you did already.
>
> Maybe you are a native english speaker and thus lazy with reading the GPL.
> If you carefully read the GPL, you of course understand that it is _very_ careful
> about what parts the GPL applies to. It definitely does _not_ apply to the
> "complete source".
Yes, in english, 'work as a whole' does mean complete. And the normal
interpretation is that it covers everything linked into the same
process at runtime unless there is an alternate interface-compatible
component with the same feature set.
> If you have problems to understand the GPL, read one of the various comments
> from lawyers, but avoid Mr. Moglen - he is well known for intentionally writing
> false claims in the public and only uses correct lawful interpretations if he
> is in a private discussion.
No one is interested in setting themselves up for a legal challenge
with opposing views by experts.
> And fortunately, Larry didn't publish "patch" under GPL, so I was able to write
> a non-GPLd POSIX compliant patch (note that gpatch is not POSIX compliant).
Larry is a nice guy. He doesn't want to cause trouble for anyone.
Apparently that's not universal....
>>
>> You don't have to 'follow' anything - just read the phrase 'work as a whole'.
>
> You need to _understand_ the GPL and avoid to just lazyly read it as you did
> before. The GPL does _not_ apply to _everything_. The GPL just applies to the
> "work" that is under GPL. For the rest, you just need to include it under _any_
> license and if you did ever carefully read the GPL, you of course did know that
> already.
It applies to everything copyright law applies to since it is really
copyright law that restricts distribution and the GPL simply provides
the exceptions. There's a valid case for linked components to be
considered derivative works of each other if they require the other
for the work as a whole to be functional.
> Fazit: The GPL does not require you to put everything under GPL. It just
> requires you to include makefiles, scripts and libraries under any license that
> permits redistribution.
Those are mentioned separately because they wouldn't be included as a
derivative work otherwise.
>> My question is 'why not do it?'. You don't lose anything but the
>> restrictions that you pretend aren't there since a dual license allows
>> you to choose the terms of the other if you prefer. I don't like the
>> GPL restrictions either, but I just say so instead of pretending
>> otherwise. A dual license is clearly needed unless your point is to
>> make people choose between either using your code or anything that is
>> GPL'd.
>
> If I did add the GPL to my code, I would not win anything, because antisocial
> people would still prevent it from being included in Debian or RedHat.
Beg your pardon? You lost me here. If you remove the reason for
exclusion, what evidence do you have that the work would still be
excluded, other than perhaps your long history of keeping it from
being usable?
> I would however risk that people send interesting patches as GPL only and this
> way prevent the freedom to use it by anybody.
And that would be different how???? You can't use them now. And
worse, you've severely restricted the number of people who might offer
patches regardless of the license.
>> > But before you like to discuss things with me, I recommend you to first inform
>> > yourself correctly.
>> >
>> > I if course _don't_ mix CDDLd code with GPLd code.
>>
>> So, you really don't want your code to be used? Then why ask why it
>> isn't popular?
>
> Please explain me why people believe RedHat or Centos is a good choice when
> there are people inside that write false claims on the GPL because they did not
> read it in a way that would allow them to understand the GPL?
How do you imagine such a 'false claim' affects anyone's use of
released code and source or why it would be a factor in their choice?
Personally I can't reconcile RedHat's restriction on redistributing
binaries with the GPL's prohibition on additional restrictions, but
Centos makes that a non-issue.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
