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 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. 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. > If you have a chunk of your work that you wish to disinterestedly > check into somebody's GPL project, then it may seem as if the license > is an imposition. But it's not: You can still publish it elsewhere > under any license. > > > > my code must also be GPLed; I have no say in the matter. Contrast > > this to > > the CDDL: provided the license I choose for my files is compatible > > with the > > CDDL, I can license my code however I like. Unlike the GPL, my > > code does > > NOT have to CDDLed, and therefore the CDDL cannot be said to be > > viral in > > nature. > > 'Viral' is just not the right term. Rather than spreading it (as I > say, associated with some of the ugliest and most dishonest > campaigns), it seems you should just admit that you personally don't > happen to like this clause of the GPL (which is designed to protect > users from familiar catastrophes). But many do, or they wouldn't > deliberately choose this license. > > 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
