On Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 10:14:33PM +0200, Stanislav Malyshev a.k.a Frodo wrote:
> AS>> That is necessary for copyleft. If you could take Linux and release it
>
> Sure. So be aware that any time you read "proprietary" in FSF texts, you
> should read "non-GPL", since GPL restricts not only more strict licenses,
> but also less strict. I understand why it's done, but let's be honest -
> don't say "we don't allow proprietary software to take advantage",
> omitting the part of "we also don't allow more free software to take
> advantage, because of our political agenda". Not being honest here results
> in unfair advertising, which leads people to troubles.
That is not true. You CAN take GPLed code and combine it with code
licensed under a less restrictive license.
> AS>> But there is no virus, and there is no contamination: just remove that
> AS>> person's code from the program, rewriting it if necessary. The rest of
> AS>> the program is not affected by the removed code's license. It never
> AS>> was, either.
>
> Yeah, but I though whole point of "free software" was sharing, right?
> Getting the world better, maybe... And here we see typical EULA argument -
> "you don't like it, you don't buy it". So we're back to square one, right?
> No free software revolution anymore, just another kind of EULA?
Sharing the code with users and other free software developers, not
necessarily with proprietary software. You need to rewrite the code
only if you want to place more restrictions on it than are in the GPL.
> AS>> the FSF can release a more liberal version of the GPL and it will
> AS>> automatically apply. And just to make sure, there is always dual
> AS>> licensing (invented by Larry Wall, a classical TIMTOWDI approach :)
>
> Well, dual licensing code as GPL and BSD (or GPL and PD, for example) is a
> real way to make GPL look stupid. I wonder why nobody tried it just to see
> what it will do - just for curiosity. Or someone did and I missed that? I
> wonder what would be FSF reaction on that. But you do understand that dual
> licensing actually makes GPL void and RMSs fear of proprietizing GPLed
> software come true? You take GPL code, wrap it into a package, license it
> under GPL+PD, then take new package under PD (forgetting about GPL
> part) and do whatever you like. GPL even hints you could do that, in
> paragraph 5:
>
> ==quote==
> 5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
> signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or
> distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are
> prohibited by law if you do not accept this License.
> ==end quote==
>
> So, if there was anything else that allowed you to distribute and modify
> that program (like dual licensing under PD), you perfectly might do
> anything you want, right?
No, that would not work. You can license, dual-license or
triple-license your own code any way you like, but another author's
code stays with the license that he or she gave it. You can write a
readline-using program dually licensed under BSD/GPL, but if you want
to make it proprietary you will have to remove readline first.
- Adi Stav
=================================================================
To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
