Alexandre Oliva wrote:



If I add some bsd code into a gpl'd work, could I then distribute the
resulting binary and only the previously gpl'd code?


No, you have to provide the whole with the permissions and the
conditions set forth in the GPL, which the modified BSD license
permits you to do.


Instead, I believe it becomes encumbered with the gpl restrictions -
and could not be used otherwise.


When part of the whole, yes.


Which was and is exactly my point. The GPL must cover the work as a
whole and thus is only compatible with licenses that permit their own
terms to be replaced with those of the GPL.



When took in isolation, it's still under
the modified BSD license,


Nothing can be taken in isolation when it is part of work containing any
GPL-covered content because of that work-as-a-whole restriction.



No, I understand that restrictions are not freedom.


So, let's see, just because you're prohibited from using software for
stealing money from others' bank accounts, and you could decide to
change any piece of software to do just that, then no software
whatsoever can be free, because it's under a restriction?


That's not, and shouldn't be, a restriction applied to the software itself.


Just because you're prohibited from removing the copyright notice and
the license from code under one of the various permissive licenses,
it's not free, because it's under a restriction?


If there was some use that this requirement prevented, then I'd say it
would make the code not free - but I can't think of any such use and
thus consider it free.



You seem to have a very odd understanding of what freedom is about.
You appear to disregard the fact that one's freedom doesn't invade
someone else's freedom.


How so? There are specific regulations for that, none of which involve
combining software components that you otherwise have the right to use
and redistribute.



If you were the only person in the universe,
and you could change physical laws to suit your wishes, then you might
be able to equate freedom to 'no restrictions'. Once others enter the
picture, what you claim as freedom, if claimed by the others, would
turn into power usable against you: threats to *your* actual
*freedom*. I don't think that's an outcome you'd be interested in,
and you wouldn't be so selfish as to wanting that kind of power only
to you, so there's some inconsistency in your stance.


None of which has anything to do with the outcomes that we can observe
for less restricted software - the original TCP/IP code being a fine
example. I want more of that kind of outcome and I don't understand why
anyone would want it to have been prevented.


--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesel@gmail.com

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Anders Karlsson wrote:

* Rahul Sundaram [20080720 19:42]:

Anders Karlsson wrote:

And any license that does not permit itself to be replaced or
over-ruled by the GPL - is hence incompatible - even if it explicitly
permits combination with the GPL for any derived work or combination
work.

Am I understanding this right?
This part is incorrect. If has additional requirements but explicitly
states that the combination is compatible with GPL, then it is. Affero
GPL (AGPL) is a example of this.


http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/agpl-3.0.html


Thanks Rahul for taking the time to be plesant and provide useful
answers to a genuine question. You are a credit to your employer and
to the organisation you represent.


That would be Red Hat and Fedora respectively but as always my opinions
are my own and you should find a lawyer for legal opinions on specific
instances



So the part of the work that is non-GPL licensed, can stay non-GPL
licensed in the combined works and derivatives?


I would differentiate between original and derivative (along with
combined work) here just to be more precise.


Not only can it stay that way, it must that way for the original code.
Again, nooone other than the original copyright holder(s) cannot
arbitrarily change the license of the original code and even the
copyright holder cannot retroactively change it for the original code
(aside from providing it under different licenses in addition)


For derivative works, the author creating a derivative work (that
includes substantial creative works justifying copyright) might choose
to publish it under a different license if the original license permits
that. If the license requires that the derivative work also fall under
the same license, it is generally referred to as copyleft.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft

GPL was the first license which used this technique but there are
several others which follow a similar technique to various extends
including the Mozilla Public License, MPL ( and MPL derived licenses
such as CDDL used by OpenSolaris), IBM CPL (used for Postfix)and even
the Microsoft Reciprocal License (which is both free and open source)


http://www.microsoft.com/opensource/licenses.mspx#Ms-RL

Even if the combined code is under GPL, the original code is still under
whatever license it was originally licensed under and will remain that way.


Rahul

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Gordon Messmer wrote:



Or... Microsoft would have used that code and used it to control
people in just the same way it does with every other piece of software
it touches.


The only software that they can use to control anyone is their OS, and
they can only do that as long as no one ships something competitive
enough to attract application development. That hasn't happened,
largely because of GPL restrictions on code that might otherwise have
been used in such products.

...

Anyway it is the GPL that has kept them rich and in control.


You've got to be trolling me.

I can't remember when I've ever heard a statement about the GPL or
Microsoft that was so far removed from reality. There are numerous
alternatives to Microsoft which aren't licensed under the GPL: OS X and
FreeBSD being two examples under very different licenses.


OS X is a great example of how a competitive product can be build on top
of well-tested freely available code. But Apple isn't really interested
in competing in the OS space - they want to sell hardware. And they
have the deep pockets to deal with some difficulty along the way.


You seem to be asserting that if we all used the BSD license, or
something else that doesn't require distribution of software to include
source code and redistribution rights, then *someone* (or everyone)
would have taken the Free Software that's available and ... done
something ... that challenged Microsoft, reduced their market share, and
created a competitive system. If you believe that, then explain how
that hasn't happened, despite high-quality systems available from
FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and the like?


It has happened with the freebsd components going into OS X and the mac
market share currently at 8% and rising (mac shipments grew 9 times
faster than the overall US PC market).


But it is too little, too late, and has none of the advantages that you
might attribute to Linux vs. BSD. If this were not prevented in the
GNU/Linux base, there would likely be many competitors that did not tie
their OS products to specific hardware.


The truth of the matter is that GNU/Linux is dominant among Free
Software unix-like platforms *because* of the license, not in spite of
it.


If you mean because of the viral nature of the GPL that people who use
it at all are forced to use that license for their bug fixes, then you
might be right, but free software is a tiny, nearly irrelevant percent
of what is actually used.


People contribute to GPL licensed products because the license
protects their investment. If they put money into improving a GPL
licensed product and attempt to make a living from that, they know that
someone else won't reduce the value of their investment by selling a
proprietary derivative that offers features that they can not.


Yes, as an anti-competitive measure to keep better versions from
existing, the GPL works. And some contributions may be motivated by
that. But that has nothing to do with freedom or making the world a
better place.


When we
improve a GPL product, we benefit from that, and so does everyone else
who uses the product.


And the 98% of the world that doesn't use GPL products doesn't.

If we allow proprietary derivatives, we reduce
the incentive to invest in Free Software. When someone builds a
proprietary derivative, they're not investing in Free Software, they're
investing in their proprietary product.


That's clearly not true. Just look at all the counterexamples like
apache, X, or my favorite, TCP/IP. When someone builds a proprietary
derivative it takes nothing away from the original and adds compatible,
choices. The more code is reused, the better for everyone regardless of
the circumstances of any particular branch.


--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

* Rahul Sundaram <sundaram@fedoraproject.org> [20080720 22:18]:
> Anders Karlsson wrote:
[snip]
>
>> So the part of the work that is non-GPL licensed, can stay non-GPL
>> licensed in the combined works and derivatives?
>
> I would differentiate between original and derivative (along with
> combined work) here just to be more precise.
>
> Not only can it stay that way, it must that way for the original code.
> Again, nooone other than the original copyright holder(s) cannot
> arbitrarily change the license of the original code and even the
> copyright holder cannot retroactively change it for the original code
> (aside from providing it under different licenses in addition)
>
> For derivative works, the author creating a derivative work (that
> includes substantial creative works justifying copyright) might choose
> to publish it under a different license if the original license permits
> that. If the license requires that the derivative work also fall under
> the same license, it is generally referred to as copyleft.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft
>
> GPL was the first license which used this technique but there are
> several others which follow a similar technique to various extends
> including the Mozilla Public License, MPL ( and MPL derived licenses
> such as CDDL used by OpenSolaris), IBM CPL (used for Postfix)and even
> the Microsoft Reciprocal License (which is both free and open source)
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/opensource/licenses.mspx#Ms-RL
>
> Even if the combined code is under GPL, the original code is still under
> whatever license it was originally licensed under and will remain that
> way.

So works licenced under the GPL can not be used to create derivative
works if the resulting work is not also under the GPL, even if the GPL
licenced part was the substantially smaller contributor to the whole?

This may seem a silly question, but I am just trying to get this
straight in my head.

Thanks!

/Anders

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Anders Karlsson wrote:

* Rahul Sundaram <sundaram@fedoraproject.org> [20080720 19:42]:

Anders Karlsson wrote:

And any license that does not permit itself to be replaced or
over-ruled by the GPL - is hence incompatible - even if it explicitly
permits combination with the GPL for any derived work or combination
work.

Am I understanding this right?
This part is incorrect. If has additional requirements but explicitly
states that the combination is compatible with GPL, then it is. Affero
GPL (AGPL) is a example of this.


http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/agpl-3.0.html


Thanks Rahul for taking the time to be plesant and provide useful
answers to a genuine question. You are a credit to your employer and
to the organisation you represent.

"Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, you have
permission to link or combine any covered work with a work licensed
under version 3 of the GNU General Public License into a single combined
work, and to convey the resulting work. The terms of this License will
continue to apply to the part which is the covered work, but the work
with which it is combined will remain governed by version 3 of the GNU
General Public License."


So the part of the work that is non-GPL licensed, can stay non-GPL
licensed in the combined works and derivatives?


Note that he is describing GPL v3. Under V2 (which applies to the
majority of works), nothing can be in a 'work as a whole' unless the
exact terms of GPLv2 apply to all parts. Of course in the case of
pre-existing code already under a less restrictive license, the original
terms remain on the original package.


--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Anders Karlsson wrote:

So works licenced under the GPL can not be used to create derivative
works if the resulting work is not also under the GPL, even if the GPL
licenced part was the substantially smaller contributor to the whole?


This is correct and by design. FSF explains the general idea behind this at

http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/

If you like even simpler terminology, Creative Commons has a explanation

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/GPL/2.0/

Creative Commons Attribute Share Alike is similar to GPL but for content

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/

Rahul

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:



You seem to not understand the difference between freedom and power,
and insist in demanding power when what you deserve and have is
freedom.


No, I understand that restrictions are not freedom.

Maybe that is because you are looking at it as a developer, and not as
an end user. It is the freedom of the end users that is being preserved.


No, that is exactly backwards. Since the GPL only prohibits
redistribution, a developer is perfectly free to combine components as
he wants for his own use. Or companies that can afford it can hire a
developer to do this in custom code that is not redistributed. It's the
end users that aren't developers and can only afford things distributed
at mass market prices that lose any chance of benefits. They just never
even see it.


--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

* Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@gmail.com> [20080720 22:42]:
[snip]
>
> Note that he is describing GPL v3. Under V2 (which applies to the
> majority of works), nothing can be in a 'work as a whole' unless the
> exact terms of GPLv2 apply to all parts. Of course in the case of
> pre-existing code already under a less restrictive license, the original
> terms remain on the original package.

Ok, thank you both for your time and explanation. I am starting to get
a sense of how it works, and I start to see why some corners of the
Software industry call the GPL "viral" and other less complimentary
things.

I don't think I have the patience to dig in to the legal side of how
this actually works, hence why I asked.

Thanks!

/Anders

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

On Jul 20, 2008, Rahul Sundaram <sundaram@fedoraproject.org> wrote:

> Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> If Linux developers had gone down that path, they'd

> They haven't done anything like this.

IIRC that "'d" stands for "would", meaning the whole consequent is
conditioned on the antecedent. Isn't that so?

--
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-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Alexandre Oliva wrote:

On Jul 20, 2008, Rahul Sundaram <sundaram@fedoraproject.org> wrote:


Alexandre Oliva wrote:

If Linux developers had gone down that path, they'd



They haven't done anything like this.


IIRC that "'d" stands for "would", meaning the whole consequent is
conditioned on the antecedent. Isn't that so?


Maybe. I am merely clarifying.

Rahul


--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list