Hello Toby, Friday, April 13, 2007, 3:06:44 PM, you wrote:
TT> 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. TT> "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. TT> It forces someone who wishes to ship MY (licensor's) product in TT> binary form to give their users the same rights they had. It does not TT> force anyone to do anything with THEIR product. This is what you TT> 'viral' people keep missing. And then you complain you can't get zfs or nvidia or wifi or ... drivers, because you want that drivers and you want to force those companies to give them for you under GPLv2. Some companies try to go around that problem and there's still no consensus if it's legal or not - but everyone is happy enough that they have those drivers than no one is actually doing anything against it (except complaining). I definitely prefer CDDL or BSD license - they just offer more freedom. -- Best regards, Robert mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://milek.blogspot.com _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
