> > Just like the Mepis/Zenwalk examples I used previously
> in the
> > thread, they modified the code and released it, yet
> they were not
> > releasing the changes/what they modified back to the
> community.
>
> They didn't have to. All the GPL required of them that
> they allegedly
> didn't do was to offer those who got their binaries
> from them a chance
> to obtain the corresponding sources.
Someone came out against them, just search Distrowatch. That they did not fully comply with the GPL?
>
> > They got into some kind of trouble and were forced to
> release the
> > code/make it available
>
> AFAIK, nobody can be forced to do so. The most a copyright
> holder of
> GPLed sotware can get from a court for the defendant to
> cease
> distribution, so that the infringement stops, plus damages.
> Releasing
> the code to rectify the harm caused by the infringement can
> be part of
> the negotiation to reduce or even remove the damages.
Someone did/or other opposing distros that did not want those distros to get the attention that they were getting. The code is available for free from some places, is that a sufficient condition? Why do people have to tarnish products when they are doing good and those that are not accuse them of violating the GPL?
>
> I don't know of any court who's ever ordered
> someone to release source
> code to satisfy the requirements of a copyright (pure)
> license. How
> could it? It migth very well be the case that the
> infringing party
> doesn't even *have* the source code, and can't
> possibly get it.
>
In the instance of Zenwalk, they posted it on their sites with the corresponding sources, for Mepis, you can get the sources provided that you pay and they will be sent to whoever asks for them.
>
> > The restrictions or the viral part of the GPL is what
> bites many
> > people and what turns them against it
I do not know enough about it, I just quote what others say. All I question is why some programs yes and others no, while both are free and open source.
>
> Please don't call it viral. It isn't viral. Not
> even close. That's
> a lie spread by the enemies of the GPL.
I am not an enemy of the GPL, I only question why it tries to restrict things that are not licensed within itself? It is/was an excellent license, but there are some things that it prohibits, *I do not know which ones*, that forces authors of software to use other licenses in which their work is more protected.
>
> It only applies to derived works, i.e., its freedom is an
> inheritance
> that a GPLed program leaves only its descendants.
>
> > Many authors have changed licenses to others besides
> the GPL,
> > because according to them, it restricts their freedoms
>
>
> As long as they still respect others' freedoms,
> that's fine.
> Unfortunate, but fine.
> http://fsfla.org/circular/2007-078#1
>
> > http://www.slax.org/modules.php?author=151
>
> > Not all the modules are GPL, there is one GNU/Grub. I
> use the
> > source and build it according to rules of creating
> modules for Slax.
> > Is there any chance I can get sued because I created
> those modules?
>
> Of getting sued? Sure, anyone can sue anyone else for any
> reason :-)
>
> I think the question you wanted to ask is, is it likely
> that such a
> lawsuit would be legitimate and successful, right :-)
Yes, that is more of what I was asking.
>
> I don't have all the facts right now, and I'm not a
> lawyer anyway, so
> I won't comment on the specifics.
>
> In general, if you combine into a single program code under
> some
> specific version of the GPL with code under other licenses,
> you only
> have permission to distribute the result if the other
> licenses are
> compatible with that specific version of the GPL.
>
> For a (not necessarily complete) list of licenses that are
> compatible
> with the GPL, see
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses
>
> If you need help to determine whether some Free Software
> package
> you're working on is in compliance with applicable Free
> Software
> licenses, or have doubts about Free Software licensing in
> general, the
> FSF offers a service to Free Software developers and users:
> just
> e-mail your question to licensing@fsf.org.
Thanks for posting this, if I ever get into some kind of trouble, I will surely use this.
>
> > Am I violating any GPL rules when I posted those
> modules on the Slax
> > website? The sources are freely available, the build
> scripts is
> > contained within each module, does that satisfy the
> GPL?
>
> From what you say, you're clearly not in intentional
> infringement, but
> this is not enough to tell whether there is any
> unintentional
> infringement. The important questions are:
>
> - whether you copied code whose copyright is held by
> someone else, and
> that you don't have permission to sub-license, into
> these packages,
> and whose licensing terms do not permit you (or any other
> person) to
> extend to others the permissions encoded in the GPL, over
> the whole of
> the combined work.
>
In some ways I do have permission to use some of the software, the ones that are GPL for sure. I should have no problem!. For the others, the users that demand the source, it is available in the own binary that they download, the instructions are provided as to how the binary is generated and how it is built and how it works. Several outside projects are mentioned where the source code is found. I do not see any trouble in doing this, I only question if it is not a GPL offense?
>
> --
Thank you Alexandre for your kindness and taking the time to explain the GPL and other things. I know that the vast majority of users do not appreciate the agenda that you push, but it is something that you have to push. How the rest of the list members and the outside Linux and/or GNU/Linux community takes it is a whole different thing!

There are some sites like

http://www.linuxmark.org/

and some quotes from comments section in Distrowatch.com weekly

Take comment 37
egin{quote}
IMHO, Linux is Linux. GNU is GNU. By calling Linux, "GNU's not unix/Linux is not unix" sounds a bit lame. Besides, let Stallman have his GNU and BSD, his nose doesn't belong in Linux. Again, IMHO.
Yes I know that there are some relations there, but there are some relations between Linux and MSWindows, too, as well as Unix/BSD and MSWindows. But we don't call Linux, "GNU's not unix/Linux is not unix/with Microsoft Windows compatibility (in some instances)."
When my MSWindows machine crashed, I used Linux to recover the data, then wiped MS off of the computer, and put Linux in its' place (was already a dual-boot). The advantage there was that I didn't have to go through the MS activation and software reinstallation merry-go-round. I used a *buntu Linux derivative with KDE. It gets the job done. This Distro vs that Distro should only be used when comparing, not bashing, nor for starting flame-wars. The bashing/wars really get nowhere, as whatever side isn't going to change the minds of the "other" side.
I'm not an expert at all, just an end-user, and like it when something "just works", as I find in Linux.
All of this is, of course, IMHO
end{quote}
and another one comment 44
<QUOTE>
http://linuxtracker.org/

About using the term: GNU/Linux
and even those that use DistroNameGNU/Linux

I think it is rather superfluous to use the term(s), don't we all know what it is !
Even those Newbies very very quickly learn what it is !

At the LinuxTracker I often remove all the superfluous crap from long names.
like: MyWonderfulSuperDuperDistro-X.X.X-GNU/Linux

It is not like many people are going to mistake Distro names for MS-Windows
For me and many others it is enough to just have simple descriptive names like:
Slackwere-xxx or Debian-xxx or SuSE-xxx or Mandriva-xxx or Ubutu-xxx etc.
</QUOTE>

Comment 60 is in your favor Alexandre though
/* quote
Regarding Gnu/Linux, I believe that most of the software that lies immediately above the kernel is Gnu. Without the Gnu part we would not have an OS. It's fine to call the Gnu software applications but, as most of you already know, they are significantly different than your desktop applications. So let's not refer to them as applications as if they are just a bunch of applications for which there are plenty of alternatives like a web browser or a word processor.

These are the applications that organize the file systems, read and write to media, compile, display text, assign user permissions, create and maintain a network connection, etc. While the Gnu portion is only 28%, as some people have pointed out, the same source indicates that Linux is only 3% or less.

If we think of GNU as not just the OS but as the license, then even the kernel is GNU and so are a lot of high level applications that we use on the desktop. That could very well mean that over 50% of your average "linux" install is GNU.

RSM is obviously fighting an uphill, and probably losing, battle. We mostly refer to it as simply Linux. I think, however, that he is being generous in suggesting GNU/Linux. He could easily and with obvious justification be advocating for simply GNU. So rather than slagging RSM for being too radical I think he is making a great effort to be diplomatic and inclusive.
quote */

The people should decide in the end what they want to call it, is that fair?

Regards,

Antonio




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

On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 01:37:51PM -0700, Antonio Olivares wrote:
> Someone came out against them, just search Distrowatch. That they
> did not fully comply with the GPL?
(...)
> Someone did/or other opposing distros that did not want those distros
> to get the attention that they were getting. The code is available for
> free from some places, is that a sufficient condition? Why do people
> have to tarnish products when they are doing good and those that are
> not accuse them of violating the GPL?

You seem to advocate a weird notion of rewarding copyright infringement.

> The people should decide in the end what they want to call it, is that fair?

Well, you can call "ant" to elephants, but they won't stop being
elephants just because you're really loud and insistent about it.

Linux's latest release can be obtained in its full and pure glory right here:

http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/linux-2.6.26.tar.bz2 [47 MB]

Now if you want to insist on calling other things "Linux", go ahead and
do it. It's your prerogative to make that mistake.

Rui

--
Pzat!
Today is Pungenday, the 57th day of Confusion in the YOLD 3174
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?

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

> I guess you don't want to read. That kernel is called
> Linux.
> I'd be as pissed off as Linus if Stallman wanted to
> call the kernel
> GNU/Linux when the kernel is called Linux.
>
> But Stallman is *not* doing that, he's perfectly fine
> and dandy that
> people call Linux to:
>
> > >
> http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/linux-2.6.26.tar.bz2
>
> ... and other such releases like:
>
> [rms@nietzche ~]$ rpm -q kernel
> kernel-2.6.25.10-86.fc9.i686
but he is not okay that a whole distro is called Linux without giving GNU any credit, where Linux the kernel is built along with the GNU utilities right?
>
> Once you get into your head that Linux is...
Linux can be the kernel itself as you have mentioned the tarball from kernel.org, it is also used to represent the various linux distributions that put that kernel together with gnu utiliites and other softwares to form a distro.
>
> > >
> http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/linux-2.6.26.tar.bz2
>
> ... then this...
>
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU/Linux_naming_controversy
>
> ...suddenly has an entirely different look, one that
> isn't so
> favourable to Linus unless you think he doesn't know
> that Linux is
>
> > >
> http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/linux-2.6.26.tar.bz2
>
> Don't play "deaf" with me, please.
I am not playing deaf with you or anyone else. You do not seem to understand. I am not attacking the GNU/Linux crowd, nor the Linux crowd. I am neutral in the matter.
>
> Rui
>
> --

Linux is the kernel, Linux is the OS as well, what are you trying to convey? Whose side are you on?

What are you arguing?

Regards,

Antonio




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

On Jul 22, 2008, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@gmail.com> wrote:

> Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>>> Yes, so if you want to distribute a copy under the GPL, you must agree
>>> to its terms, which then cover the entire work.
>>
>> But that does not take away any other rights you might have as to
>> specific parts.

> Rights aren't the issue.

Of course they are. A license is a grant of rights, nothing else.

> I don't see how you can agree to the GPL terms for a copy first, then
> distribute a copy of some dual or other licensed part of it in a way
> you just agreed not to do.

I honestly don't see any "agreement not to do". I see permissions.

The closest to that, in GPLv2, are sections 4 and 5. The statement
"These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this
License", in the case of dual licensing, or of a component under a
more permissive license, is simply not true in these cases.

It is at all clear, however, that section 4 does not apply in spite of
the 'you may not ... except as expressily provide under this License'
being false.

>> That's not the way it works. You have permissions. You can choose to
>> use them any time you like.

> Except that you agreed not to in that 2b clause.

Err, no. 2b is just a condition to one of the permissions. You're
not even bound by 2b; you could instead use the permissions encoded in
1, 2a, 2c, 3, or any other permissions you have that are not subject
to this condition you object to. 2b is not a prohibition, just a
specification of one of the possible variants of the permission
granted in 2.

It's a "you're welcome into my home, as long as you don't smoke
inside, or you smoke a pipe with flavored tobacco". You're not
agreeing to smoke a pipe with flavored tobacco, or to never smoke
again. You can smoke, even inside my home, if you abide by the
conditions of the permission granted. Or perhaps you don't smoke, in
which case you go "don't smoke inside". And you can most definitely
smoke (or not) whatever you like elsewhere, if you have permission to
do so, or if there's no requirement for permission to do so. It's a
permission, not a restriction. (Given the assumption that, by law,
you need my permission to enter my home)

> but I don't see how the agreement to apply the GPL restrictions

You're still getting confused because you're thinking in terms of
restrictions. There aren't any. Think "permission to go that far",
in the absence of which you couldn't go anywhere. The restriction on
not going any farther is not something you get from the GPL, so by
agreeing with it you don't agree with any such restrictions. The
restrictions are encoded in copyright law. If you accept the
permissions granted through the license, they won't take away any
other permissions that lifted restrictions from law.

> The point of that work-as-a-whole clause is to get you to agree to
> apply restrictions to other people's work

Rather to grant the same permissions over any work derived from the
work provided under the GPL, to ensure that the whole remains free.
You don't have to believe me, that's spelled out in the preamble of
the license.

When not combined into that single work, if they're not derived works
of GPLed works on their own, their copyright holders can apply
whatever terms they like to it. The GPL can't and doesn't change
that.

The condition for distribution of modified works only extends only to
works derived from the GPLed work. If the combined work is derived
from a GPLed work, then its authors have granted you permission to
distribute the combined work under the GPL. You also need permission
from copyright holders of any other works you have used. If all of
them permit distribution under the GPL (say, because they granted you
a license that is more permissive than the GPL), then you have
permission to distribute the whole under the GPL.

And then, if you don't have any other permissions that would enable
you to distribute the whole under the GPL, then the GPL is only
license you could use to distribute the whole.

If you have permission from all copyright holders to distribute the
combined work under another license, you can do that too. Even if the
licenses are incompatible, you can extend the permissions granted by
the copyright holders to all recipients of the program. You don't
have to choose one and use it. Even if you modify the program, as
long as you work within the permissions of both licenses, you can
extend those permissions to anyone else.

It's a bit like Schrödinger's cat. Until you open the box and check
(i.e., do something that one of the licenses don't permit), the cat is
both dead and alive ( i.e., you are operating under both licenses at
the same time).

It's only when you operate out of the scope of a license than you are
then no longer permitted to modify or distribute the result of that
modification under that license. You can still distribute the work
under the other.

> That's the reason the GPL is different from other licenses.

All copyleft licenses are like that, at least to some extent. Some of
them don't piggiback on the copyright notion of "derived work",
though, and instead choose different lines to draw, such as "library
interfaces" and "source files".

--
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

On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 02:36:56PM -0700, Antonio Olivares wrote:
> > I guess you don't want to read. That kernel is called
> > Linux.
> > I'd be as pissed off as Linus if Stallman wanted to
> > call the kernel
> > GNU/Linux when the kernel is called Linux.
> >
> > But Stallman is *not* doing that, he's perfectly fine
> > and dandy that
> > people call Linux to:
> >
> > > >
> > http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/linux-2.6.26.tar.bz2
> >
> > ... and other such releases like:
> >
> > [rms@nietzche ~]$ rpm -q kernel
> > kernel-2.6.25.10-86.fc9.i686
>
> but he is not okay that a whole distro is called Linux without giving
> GNU any credit

Yes, and I share his view, the GNU project is at least just as worthy of
credit.

> where Linux the kernel is built along with the GNU
> utilities right?

Totally unrelated fact.

> > Once you get into your head that Linux is...
> Linux can be the kernel itself as you have mentioned the tarball from
> kernel.org, it is also used to represent the various linux distributions
> that put that kernel together with gnu utiliites and other softwares to
> form a distro.

No, some people perpetuate a mistake through the name of their
distributions. That still doesn't make it right.

> > http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/linux-2.6.26.tar.bz2
> >
> > ... then this...
> >
> > >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU/Linux_naming_controversy
> >
> > ...suddenly has an entirely different look, one that
> > isn't so
> > favourable to Linus unless you think he doesn't know
> > that Linux is
> >
> > > >
> > http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/linux-2.6.26.tar.bz2
> >
> > Don't play "deaf" with me, please.
>
> I am not playing deaf with you or anyone else. You do not seem to
> understand. I am not attacking the GNU/Linux crowd, nor the Linux crowd.
> I am neutral in the matter.

You seem all but neutral. You also seem to want to continue flogging this
fish way beyond it's rot point.

> Linux is the kernel,

Linux is *a* kernel that GNU can use. There are at least four, three of
them quite usable (Linux, BSD and the Solaris kernel -- think project
Nirvana).

> Linux is the OS as well, what are you trying to convey?

There are two schools of what an OS is, some say it is just the kernel,
some say that a system comprising the kernel alone is so useless it
doesn't deserve being called a system, the minimum requirements of it
needing to be thus expanded.

I belong to the later school. If you belong to the first school, you
better stop using the term Windows and use kernel32.dll instead.

At least be consistent.

> Whose side are you on? What are you arguing?

Funny you should ask that.

Rui

--
Hail Eris!
Today is Pungenday, the 57th day of Confusion in the YOLD 3174
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?

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

> You seem all but neutral. You also seem to want to continue
> flogging this
> fish way beyond it's rot point.
>
You were the one that rotted the fish, here's what you said

/*
You seem to advocate a weird notion of rewarding copyright infringement.

> The people should decide in the end what they want to call it, is that fair?

Well, you can call "ant" to elephants, but they won't stop being
elephants just because you're really loud and insistent about it.

Linux's latest release can be obtained in its full and pure glory right here:

http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/linux-2.6.26.tar.bz2 [47 MB]

Now if you want to insist on calling other things "Linux", go ahead and
do it. It's your prerogative to make that mistake.

*/
Why is it a mistake?

All I said is that people should call it the way they want to, if underneath the layers of software resides the linux kernel with/without the GNU utilites. Like others have said on this list, they should call it whatever they consider is best. You cannot force people to do as you want, whether old school or new school or whatever you believe. IT should be called as you want. Advocating GNU/Linux is okay peacefully, but not demanding as you come into the picture. It is not right.

Regards,

Antonio




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

On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 03:29:34PM -0700, Antonio Olivares wrote:
> Why is it a mistake?
>
> All I said is that people should call it the way they want to, if
> underneath the layers of software resides the linux kernel with/without
> the GNU utilites. Like others have said on this list, they should call
> it whatever they consider is best. You cannot force people to do as you
> want, whether old school or new school or whatever you believe. IT should
> be called as you want. Advocating GNU/Linux is okay peacefully, but not
> demanding as you come into the picture. It is not right.

Since I'm not demanding or forcing anyone, I'm sorry to say, but you're
dangerously near to this profile:

Channel of Information, On-line Forums

* Monitor the relevant Usenet groups at all times
* Write well
* Be exceedingly formal and polite
o It is very easy to give offense
o Always assume that you are wrong; ask others to explain it to you
o Developers are impressed by clear, precise, polite communication
o Don’t sound like a prig

http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/Comes-3096.pdf

I think it's useless to continue this, don't you? At least I won't bother
with you anymore, though...

Rui

--
Fnord.
Today is Pungenday, the 57th day of Confusion in the YOLD 3174
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?

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

Alexandre Oliva wrote:



Yes, so if you want to distribute a copy under the GPL, you must agree
to its terms, which then cover the entire work.

But that does not take away any other rights you might have as to
specific parts.



Rights aren't the issue.


Of course they are. A license is a grant of rights, nothing else.


Licenses often impose terms you must meet as a condition of granting
those rights. In the GPL case, the only way you can meet those
conditions is to apply the GPL terms on all parts of the work on all
subsequent distributions.



I don't see how you can agree to the GPL terms for a copy first, then
distribute a copy of some dual or other licensed part of it in a way
you just agreed not to do.


I honestly don't see any "agreement not to do". I see permissions.


Permissions you get when you agree to the license terms. Otherwise the
restrictions of copyright apply.




The closest to that, in GPLv2, are sections 4 and 5. The statement
"These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this
License", in the case of dual licensing, or of a component under a
more permissive license, is simply not true in these cases.


If you don't accept the GPL terms you would have any permissions granted
by sub-components. If you do accept the GPL, it demands its own terms
be applied to all components.



Except that you agreed not to in that 2b clause.


Err, no. 2b is just a condition to one of the permissions. You're
not even bound by 2b; you could instead use the permissions encoded in
1, 2a, 2c, 3, or any other permissions you have that are not subject
to this condition you object to. 2b is not a prohibition, just a
specification of one of the possible variants of the permission
granted in 2.


2b says that if you accept the license - and you are not free to
redistribute the gpl-only parts if you don't - that the terms must apply
to all components.



but I don't see how the agreement to apply the GPL restrictions


You're still getting confused because you're thinking in terms of
restrictions.


No, I'm not confused. You can't accept the GPL on a sub-set of a work.
You can ignore the GPL and use other terms available for a subset, but
if you agree to the GPL, you've agreed to apply it to the whole.



There aren't any. Think "permission to go that far",
in the absence of which you couldn't go anywhere.


Permissions aren't the point - it is what you agree to do.


The restriction on
not going any farther is not something you get from the GPL, so by
agreeing with it you don't agree with any such restrictions. The
restrictions are encoded in copyright law. If you accept the
permissions granted through the license, they won't take away any
other permissions that lifted restrictions from law.


The terms of a license have nothing to do with copyright law. You can
agree to anything in a license as long as it isn't actually illegal. An
exclusion of copyright rules is simply what you get in return.



The point of that work-as-a-whole clause is to get you to agree to
apply restrictions to other people's work


Rather to grant the same permissions over any work derived from the
work provided under the GPL, to ensure that the whole remains free.
You don't have to believe me, that's spelled out in the preamble of
the license.


It doesn't matter if you believe the misleading preamble or not. It is
the fine print of 2b that demands that all combined parts of the
work-as-a-whole have the GPL terms applied, or you don't have the
freedom to redistribute any that don't have separate licenses.



When not combined into that single work, if they're not derived works
of GPLed works on their own, their copyright holders can apply
whatever terms they like to it. The GPL can't and doesn't change
that.


But then you can't distribute the strictly-GPL part of that work because
you didn't agree to the terms of the license.



The condition for distribution of modified works only extends only to
works derived from the GPLed work.


The condition makes it impossible to combine third party code that can't
be covered by the GPL.



If the combined work is derived
from a GPLed work, then its authors have granted you permission to
distribute the combined work under the GPL. You also need permission
from copyright holders of any other works you have used. If all of
them permit distribution under the GPL (say, because they granted you
a license that is more permissive than the GPL), then you have
permission to distribute the whole under the GPL.


Yes, if it is all-GPL, then no new problem happens with additional GPL
distribution of the whole work.



If you have permission from all copyright holders to distribute the
combined work under another license, you can do that too. Even if the
licenses are incompatible, you can extend the permissions granted by
the copyright holders to all recipients of the program. You don't
have to choose one and use it. Even if you modify the program, as
long as you work within the permissions of both licenses, you can
extend those permissions to anyone else.


Yes, if the whole work is dual-licensed it can be distributed under the
other license terms without agreeing to the GPL terms.



It's a bit like Schrödinger's cat. Until you open the box and check
(i.e., do something that one of the licenses don't permit), the cat is
both dead and alive ( i.e., you are operating under both licenses at
the same time).


At this point you've agreed to apply GPL terms to the whole work. If
you are going to break that agreement you need to hide back in the box
so no one knows if it was before or after you accepted the GPL license
on that work.



It's only when you operate out of the scope of a license than you are
then no longer permitted to modify or distribute the result of that
modification under that license. You can still distribute the work
under the other.


That's the reason the GPL is different from other licenses.


All copyleft licenses are like that, at least to some extent. Some of
them don't piggiback on the copyright notion of "derived work",
though, and instead choose different lines to draw, such as "library
interfaces" and "source files".


Even though they can't exactly force you to apply their terms to other
people's work, it is as close as you can get. They withhold your
freedom to redistribute until you have agreed to their terms - and in
the GPL case these must apply to all other combined work.


--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com

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

On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 05:42:58PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> The terms of a license have nothing to do with copyright law. You can
> agree to anything in a license as long as it isn't actually illegal. An
> exclusion of copyright rules is simply what you get in return.

With the GNU GPL you don't have to agree with anything. It is an
unilateral grant of rights as long as you fulfill some obligations when
you distribute pristine, modified or derived copies.

If you don't abide with those obligations, you don't have the permission
to distribute pristine, modified or derived copies because copyright
restricts it so.

> Even though they can't exactly force you to apply their terms to other
> people's work, it is as close as you can get. They withhold your
> freedom to redistribute until you have agreed to their terms - and in
> the GPL case these must apply to all other combined work.

Yes they can. Very simply it's the quid-pro-quod required of you in
order for you to distribute pristine, modified or derived copies.

Best,
Rui

--

Today is Pungenday, the 57th day of Confusion in the YOLD 3174
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?

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

Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:


The terms of a license have nothing to do with copyright law. You can
agree to anything in a license as long as it isn't actually illegal. An
exclusion of copyright rules is simply what you get in return.


With the GNU GPL you don't have to agree with anything. It is an
unilateral grant of rights as long as you fulfill some obligations when
you distribute pristine, modified or derived copies.


If you don't agree to their terms you don't have the freedom to
redistribute.



If you don't abide with those obligations, you don't have the permission
to distribute pristine, modified or derived copies because copyright
restricts it so.


Exactly, the license is very restrictive.

Even though they can't exactly force you to apply their terms to other
people's work, it is as close as you can get. They withhold your
freedom to redistribute until you have agreed to their terms - and in
the GPL case these must apply to all other combined work.


Yes they can. Very simply it's the quid-pro-quod required of you in
order for you to distribute pristine, modified or derived copies.


Is there even a name for quid-pro-quo when it attempts to involve third
parties in the way the GPL interferes with combining existing works with
different terms?


--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com

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