[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] Indexes: Main | Date | Thread | Author

RE: [ba-unrev-talk] GPL? - GCC phobia

[ having mail system difficulty.  Please excuse possible duplicate. There
are changes from the one probably rejected by the server, too.]    (01)

The GPL version of the "bolt anology" has to do with whether or not the
thing you put together with the bolt can be considered a derivative work of
the bolt.    (02)

I don't think that makes any sense at all.  But I don't expect to be
consulted on the matter by anyone having anything decisive to say about it.
This is uncharted territory because it involves inclusion of one work in
another operationally, and there is no plausible counterpart with printed
works that would not be a case of unauthorized redistribution (even though
not creation of a derivative work).  The GPL grants unrestricted
redistribution and usage.    (03)

Nevertheless, those who believe in a strong GPL that prohibits GPL'd work
being included in a larger non-GPL'd work will claim that the license
successfully prohibits GPL'd bolts in non-GPL'd assemblages/constructions,
etc., by a strong reading of "derivative work."    (04)

I am not a reliable authority on this viral case because I have no desire
myself to subject anyone to the risk of such an innocent infringement.  So I
don't use GPL on works of mine and I don't restrict derivative works of mine
with regard to how they must be licensed.  Were I to make a GPL-derivative,
I would honor the GPL, and I would not distribute anything that integrated a
GPL'd work with a non-GPL'd container or companion.    (05)

If you are someone who is concerned about others who use your software in an
integrative way (e.g., running it from a proprietary shell, say), without
modification, then being charged with violation of the GPL by someone (the
FSF or someone else who would be granted standing in the matter), I
recommend that you use an alternative open-source license and avoid that
possible barrier to the safe usage of your software.    (06)

-- Dennis    (07)

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org
[mailto:owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org]On Behalf Of Eric Armstrong
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 17:50
To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org
Subject: Re: [ba-unrev-talk] GPL? - GCC phobia    (08)

Yes. What you say certainly makes sense with respect to the compiler,
that's how I understood it. That's the hammer analogy.    (09)

But how is that different from the bolt analogy, where I use a linked list
class in an application?    (010)

[ ... ]    (011)