Okay, time-out - Hitler and the Nazi's, Goodwins Law invoked. There, kill the thread already. * Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@xxxxxxxxxx> [20080618 22:03]: > On Jun 14, 2008, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Alexandre Oliva wrote: > >>> I'm not mistaken. Everything in there except the conditional grant to > >>> use, modify, distribute is a restriction. > > >> Like what? Tell me *anything* you could do in the absence of the GPL, > >> that, by accepting the GPL, you can no longer do. > > > Given (or knowing about) a library not covered by the GPL, I can write > > and distribute original work that uses the functions provided by that > > library, knowing that anyone can obtain their own copy of by my code > > and the additional library and use them together. > > Assuming you have permission from the copyright holder of the library > to do so. If you do, whether or not the library is also available > under the GPL won't make any difference. > > I get the impression you misunderstood the question. I'm not asking > something you could do if you had some other permissive license that > you couldn't do with the GPL. What I'm asking is whether you know of > anything that, in the absence of a copyright license, you could do > with a work, that, after accepting the GPL, you could no longer do. > > This would be a prohibition of the GPL. > > Anything else that you might believe to be a prohibition of the GPL is > actually a prohibition from copyright law, that the GPL refrains from > lifting. > > >> Another fallacy. "You can redistribute under the same license" > >> doesn't divide, it has quite the opposite effect. It's permitting > >> redistribution under any licenses that may lead to forks, including > >> ones that don't permit further modifications. > > > You can't permit redistribution of something you have prohibited from > > existing in the first place. > > You could, but this doesn't apply to the GPL anyway. > > The GPL doesn't forbid [anything, not even] the creation of any > derived works (and no permission is needed to create non-derived > works). > > > for example the original BSD license which is about as far from > > proprietary as you can get. > > Not true, in two senses. > > 1. the modified BSD license is even more permissive than the original > BSD license, and it is GPL-compatible :-) > > 2. there is a lot of non-Free (as you say, proprietary) Software > distributed in part or as a whole under the original and the modified > BSD licenses > > > I agree that the separation would be more obvious > > if the bits were not embedded as data in the kernel in whatever format > > the compiler decides to use > > ... and the code hadn't been modified so as to require the presence of > those bits in there and so on... > > > You could probably modify the compiler to store data in a separate > > file instead of whatever embedded memory-loading format it currently > > uses but it wouldn't change the copyright status of the output. > > Agreed. The resulting object file would be just as derived from both, > and the source file modified to require the presence of the firmware > would still be just as derived from both. > > -- > Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ > Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org} > FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/ > Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} > > -- > fedora-devel-list mailing list > fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list -- Anders Karlsson <anders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> All-Round Linux Tinkerer & RHCE -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
