Alexandre Oliva wrote:



Please stop spreading misinformation.



That's funny - remember this post is in response to my exact quote of
the license section 2b. Do you really consider what the license
actually say as misinformation?


When you quote it out of context, you turn it into misinformation,
yes.


The context is that it is a part of what you must agree to do if you
want to do anything with _every_ GPL-encumbered work that copyright law
alone would not permit. It is only agreeing to those terms that gives
you additional rights. There are no other options. If you don't or
can't apply those terms to all parts or you can't share any that
require it.



Please. If you are serious about trying to make progress in this
discussion, go talk to a lawyer and stop making things up. If you
proceed further without talking to a lawyer, the only possible
conclusion is that you are only interested in wasting our time.


A lawyer can't change what it says.


FTR, I did get a lawyer's opinion on that, from the same legal counsel
that advises the FSF, who happens to be the author and the copyright
holder of AFAIK the largest body of code available under the GPL.


If the FSF doesn't not believe that the work-as-a-whole clause actually
means the terms must cover the work as a whole, why don't they make
another license that says what they want it to mean? Would this
imaginative interpretation also permit sharing of GPL-covered components
modified to link with proprietary libraries among people who otherwise
have the right to do so (i.e. all concerned parties have their own
license to the proprietary part). If it does, or you can explain the
wording that differentiates between this scenario and parts that are
under a different licence that the FSF happens to like this week, then
I'll believe you are on to something.


--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com


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

Alexandre Oliva wrote:



it has always been immoral to demand that others give up their rights.
Taking away legitimate rights, yes, that would be immoral.



Taking away any right is immoral.


Like, let's say, taking away one's right to own slaves?


Red Herring! 'I' don't/can't take away anyone's right to own slaves.
The self-evident right of freedom of individuals takes it away. There
is no such self-evident concept that your own ideas or work must be
encumbered by someone else's terms. Forcing that takes away any
possible joy someone might ever have in making their own decision about
how to share their work. Someone improving a GPL-covered work does not
have that choice.



A person who is respectful of others cannot demand to take their
choices away.


Agreed. But granting more choices that the person didn't have is
hardly similar to this.


"Better than a sharp stick in the eye'.


And refraining from granting other choices
that the person wanted to get, but that would enable the person to
take away from others,


You can't 'take away' anything that is already available.


might be "respectful" to the direct recipient
in some strange world, but not respectful of downstream users.


The downstream users can never have less available. The choices when
adding something are to permit it to be shared or not. In many
situations the GPL simply prohibits any sharing or improvement at all,
the worst of all possible outcomes.



That's the reasoning behind copyleft.



And it is clearly misguided, given that there is no value in what it
provides, and much harm it what it takes away.


And yet, per your own arguments, sharing something that is undesirable
never harms the sharing you regard as good. So why do you care?
Could you at least try to be consistent?


I am consistent and am talking about the larger set of what it
prohibits, not the small subset of what it allows.




The only situation in which you're not able to share the code is when
it's part of a work that is based on someone else's work.



Would you care to estimate how many potential improvements that prohibits?


Not respecting users' freedoms can never be an improvement.

Being unable to combine GPLed code with code under some other license
is not something you can blame on the GPL alone.


Of course I can. The entire reason for the GPL to exist is to prevent
combining with code under other terms. That is it's unique feature.



It's always because
the other license is less permissive than the GPL, and for all other
copyleft licenses, because they were *designed* to be, to weaken the
plan of sharing of the GPL.


No, it is because only the GPL has a work-as-a-whole clause that
explicitly prohibits most of the potential ways of improving the work.



There is no way to take any of the rights that the GPL conveys
compared to copyright law without this clause being applied.


And what about *other* rights you might have received through other
means?


What about them? The only way you get rights beyond what copyright law
would enforce is by applying exactly GPL terms to all parts of a work as
a whole.



If there is any part where only the GPL applies you must accept the
2b terms or you can't share it at all.


That's false. You only need to abide by the conditions in 2b *if* you
choose to modify the program, and distribute modified versions.


No, you don't have the right to distribute without accepting GPL terms
whether modifications are involved or not. The upstream distribution
where you got your copy would have already had to apply the GPL terms
for you to obtain it.



If you merely run the program, or distribute it in source code form
the way you received it, you don't need to abide by any of the
conditions of section 2.


Running the program is permitted without accepting the license.
Redistributing is not, modified or otherwise. If you distribute, you
must apply exactly the GPL terms - which in the unmodified case had to
have already been applied.



I'm talking about what the license actually says and what has to
happen if you comply with it.


A license (rather than license agreement) is a grant of permissions to
do certain things, nothing but it. The only thing you agree to is to
receive those permissions.


That's simply not true.


As long as you operate within those
permissions, you're covered. If you operate outside them, you're not
covered by that license. If you have another license that grants you
that permission, you're still covered.


But you can't be 'within' the GPL permissions (terms) unless you comply
with it's work-as-a-whole clause. And it explicitly says that nothing
else can give you permission to redistribute.



Do you not agree that cooperation should be voluntary? Or that you
should have the right to make that voluntary choice?


No. Quite the opposite. It is a key point. It is by no means wrong.


But you have no voluntary choice for the terms on your own work added to
improve a work containing GPL-encumbered code.



You're the one insisting that it's wrong for lots of developers to not
want their contributions to GPLed programs contributed to non-GPLed
efforts. Consistency?


It is wrong to deny any possibility that may improve the state of the
art in software development or provide a useful new program that may
improve people's lives. The potential recipients of such products have
their own inherent and self-evident freedom to choose whether the terms
imposed are desirable or not. Denying that freedom is the part of the
harm. Authors may have the right to impose the GPL restrictions, it may
be better than copyright law alone (or a sharp stick in the eye), but it
still is harmful because of the choices it takes away.



Something that you make freely available can't be 'exploited' in any
way that hurts it. It can only be improved.


The recipients can be exploited, and that's the harm that the GPL
attempts to prevent.


You can't be 'exploited' by being permitted to have more choices. And
those choices are what the GPL prohibits - with the result that that
great majority of people get no use of the code at all.


--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com

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

> > Being unable to combine GPLed code with code under
> some other license
> > is not something you can blame on the GPL alone.
>
> Of course I can. The entire reason for the GPL to exist is
> to prevent
> combining with code under other terms. That is it's
> unique feature.

For instance there is an article named
"GPL Hindering Two-Way Code Sharing?"

http://bsd.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/01/2333233

It discusses how the licenses act in regards to each other and code sharing. From that page a link to

http://kerneltrap.org/OpenBSD/Stealing_Versus_Sharing_Code

which is an interesting read as well. Here's a quote taken directly from it

"if you add 'large pieces of originality' to the code which are valid for copyright protection on their own, you may choose to put a different and separate (must be non-conflicting...) license at the top of the file above the existing license." He then suggested, "if you wish for everyone to remain friends, you should give code back. That means (at some ethical or friendliness level) you probably do not want to put a GPL at the top of a BSD or ISC file, because you would be telling the people who wrote the BSD or ISC file, 'thanks for what you wrote, but this is a one-way street, you give us code, and we take it, we give you you nothing back.'"


Regards,

Antonio




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

Les Mikesell wrote:

Alexandre Oliva wrote:


Please stop spreading misinformation.


That's funny - remember this post is in response to my exact quote of
the license section 2b. Do you really consider what the license
actually say as misinformation?


The terms of the license aren't misinformation; your uninformed
interpretation of them is.


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

Alexandre Oliva wrote:



Your wording is too ambiguous and you associate unusual politics with
some of those words so I have no idea what you intend.


Tell me which words, and I'll point out they're present in the GPL as
well, and you don't seem to have any trouble (mis)interpreting it.


Yes, of course the GPL misrepresents words to make restrictions sound
like freedom. That's the reason it exists. But the CDDL, MPL, etc., do
nothing to conflict with the terms you specify.



- I charge the first customer, that hired the software development,
a fair price for the work I did.



Put yourself on the other side of that fence. Would you be that first
customer for something no single person could afford?


If I need it badly enough, sure? If I believe I can recover a fair
portion of those costs, sure?


I want to hear your plan for that. Or any possible plan. My contention
is that the GPL terms make any such plan infeasible, if not impossible,
and thus eliminates most of the usual incentives for creativity and
innovation. And it is a direct cause of not having a fully competitive,
mostly free, alternative to the monopoly product. If I need to be more
explicit, just as certain extreme leftist political systems eliminate
incentives to productivity, copyleft terms eliminate incentives to
creativity.



- This customer is entitled to further distribute it or sell it, since
it's Free Software.



Yet, the first recipient can also sell it at a lower cost - or give it
away.


Why should I care? Remember, I've already been paid by my work. If
they do, good for them!


No, in my scenario, you are the one doing the funding. Not some
imaginary first customer that you make up.



Why? Long before that the early recipients will have made it
available.


If they do, per your argument, they'd be losing the ability to recover
part of their costs. Why would they?


Because they can. And because their first customer can. How can you
ever ensure, or even encourage a fair distribution of the development
cost of a large work?



to make the point clear, let's assume that this work would be
intuitive to use and have no flaws so there is no potential revenue
beyond an initial sale.


Because in some strange world, that's how the majority of software is?


Much free software is incomplete and lacking in documentation (because
there's no particular reason for it to be complete or well
documented...), but that doesn't have to be the case. Some products
'just work' and continue to work for at least the life of the machine
where they were installed. When discussing incentives to produce new
innovations, I'd prefer to talk about that latter kind that is better
for everyone.


--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com

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

Gordon Messmer wrote:



Please stop spreading misinformation.


That's funny - remember this post is in response to my exact quote of
the license section 2b. Do you really consider what the license
actually say as misinformation?


The terms of the license aren't misinformation; your uninformed
interpretation of them is.


There is nothing to interpret. If you don't like what the license
actually says, why do you keep defending 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 wrote:


The context is that it is a part of what you must agree to do if you
want to do anything with _every_ GPL-encumbered work that copyright law
alone would not permit.


That statement is a little ambiguous. The GPL does not have any power
which copyright law does not grant. Specifically, it can not change the
terms of work licensed under any terms other than its own and it can not
force you to accept any other or additional terms on such work.


If the FSF doesn't not believe that the work-as-a-whole clause actually
means the terms must cover the work as a whole, why don't they make
another license that says what they want it to mean?


You're still not getting what "work as a whole" means. First, you have
to understand that legal interpretation of terms is not like English
interpretation. Legal terms have specific meanings which are sometimes
different than English meanings because language tends to change and
evolve with people's use of it. Legal terms do not change.


In the context of a legal interpretation of a distribution license
(copyright license), "work as a whole" does not mean each individual part.


If it did mean each individual part, then the GPL would have used a
different term. If the GPL had said "each individual part" or something
equivalent, then no license other than the GPL could be compatible with
the GPL. Copyright law does not allow you to change the distribution
terms for a work to which you do not hold the copyright.


Instead, "work as a whole" means the functional work that is a sum of
all of the parts. Since this meaning does not require that all parts
have the same license, it allows for the work as a whole to contain some
parts under different but compatible terms. Thus, a GPL protected work
may contain BSD licensed code. The BSD license does not place any
requirements on distribution that the GPL does not, so it is compatible.
When you distribute a work that is GPL licensed and contains BSD
licensed code, you are meeting the terms of the BSD license and are
allowed to distribute that code. However, since you can not change the
license on a work to which you don't hold copyright, both you and your
users are distributing the BSD licensed code under the BSD license.


The terms of the GPL state that (among other things), you must
distribute the source code corresponding to any modified or unmodified
"work as a whole" that you distribute. That means that if you start
with a GPL licensed work that contains BSD licensed code, then among
other options, you may:
* distribute the unmodified work, containing the compatibly licensed
parts.
* distribute the GPL licensed code without the BSD licensed parts.
The result may not function, and I'm not sure why anyone would want to
receive a non-functional work from you, but you have that right.
* distribute a compiled version of the unmodified work. In this
case, the terms of the GPL require that you also distribute or offer to
distribute the source code to the "work as a whole". That means that
you may not withhold any of the source code, or offer any of the source
code under an incompatible license. It does not mean that each part of
the source code must be GPL licensed.
* distribute a compiled version of a modified (derived) work. In
this case, you must still distribute or offer to distribute the complete
source code, and any changes that you've made must be under a compatible
license.


None of the terms of the GPL require that you give up the rights that
you were granted by the copyright holder who gave you -- either directly
or indirectly -- code under a compatible license. It merely requires
that when you distribute a work, then you must meet the distribution
terms for the entire work. Even after distributing a work under the
GPL, you may extract the parts under a compatible license and distribute
those parts, only, under the terms of their own license. The recipients
of your GPL licensed work as a whole may do the same.


No other interpretation of the terms of the GPL is allowed by copyright
law. You may continue to argue otherwise, but you're arguing about an
imaginary situation which does not exist and can not exist under
existing copyright law.


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

> >>> Please stop spreading misinformation.
> >>
> >> That's funny - remember this post is in
> response to my exact quote of
> >> the license section 2b. Do you really consider
> what the license
> >> actually say as misinformation?
> >
> > The terms of the license aren't misinformation;
> your uninformed
> > interpretation of them is.
>
> There is nothing to interpret. If you don't like what
> the license
> actually says, why do you keep defending it?
>
> --

He might defend the good parts of the license
just look in the analogy by Mr. Hoffman about the girl*

While on this topic, I found articles on GPL Hindering code sharing

http://bsd.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/01/2333233

In that above page, I found an argument by Jack Hoffman*,
<quote>
The BSD developers got what they wanted. Their code is in use. The BSD license intentionally trades away protection from inclusion in differently licensed projects in return for the increased likelihood that the code can be used.

The GPL developers got what they wanted. Their code is protected from proprietization (And ONLY their code. Anyone can take the original BSD licensed code and do what they want with it).

There is no story here. The GPL and BSD licenses try to achieve different goals and both work as advertised. If you want an analogy: BSD is like the girl who sleeps with everybody. She gets a lot of sex and is invited to every party, but nobody respects her. GPL is like the girl who is selective about her partners. She doesn't have quite as much "fun" and has earned herself a little bit of a hard-to-get reputation, but the people who know her treat her well. Proprietary licenses usually require payment.
</quote>

In trying to work together, the code was released as GPL, but they found that there could have been violations?

http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20070829001634

Now, since the code was released under GPLv2, the changes cannot be shared between the two communities. This is where the people lose on both sides of the argument.

Regards,

Antonio




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

Antonio Olivares wrote:

If you want an analogy: BSD is like the girl who sleeps with everybody. She gets a lot of sex and is invited to every party, but nobody respects her. GPL is like the girl who is selective about her partners. She doesn't have quite as much "fun" and has earned herself a little bit of a hard-to-get reputation, but the people who know her treat her well.


Not quite, but its a good pretense The GPL girl has few partners
because her disease is contagious.


--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com

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

Gordon Messmer wrote:

Les Mikesell wrote:


The context is that it is a part of what you must agree to do if you
want to do anything with _every_ GPL-encumbered work that copyright
law alone would not permit.


That statement is a little ambiguous. The GPL does not have any power
which copyright law does not grant. Specifically, it can not change the
terms of work licensed under any terms other than its own and it can not
force you to accept any other or additional terms on such work.


The GPL doesn't change terms on anything else and I've never implied
that it can or does. However, it only grants permissions beyond
copyright restrictions if you comply with its terms, which include
applying the GPL restrictions to all parts of a work. If you can't or
won't do that, you don't get to do anything with the already GPL
encumbered portions that copyright does not permit.


If the FSF doesn't not believe that the work-as-a-whole clause
actually means the terms must cover the work as a whole, why don't
they make another license that says what they want it to mean?


You're still not getting what "work as a whole" means. First, you have
to understand that legal interpretation of terms is not like English
interpretation. Legal terms have specific meanings which are sometimes
different than English meanings because language tends to change and
evolve with people's use of it. Legal terms do not change.


I understand that there can be some contention about what a 'derived
work' is. But there can be no confusion about what the GPL says about
the components, once you agree that a work is derived and thus
encumbered by the terms.


In the context of a legal interpretation of a distribution license
(copyright license), "work as a whole" does not mean each individual part.


Of course it does, or proprietary parts could be included - or linkages
that make them a required part of the work as a whole.


If it did mean each individual part, then the GPL would have used a
different term. If the GPL had said "each individual part" or something
equivalent, then no license other than the GPL could be compatible with
the GPL. Copyright law does not allow you to change the distribution
terms for a work to which you do not hold the copyright.


The licenses that are compatible with the GPL are compatible because the
GPL restrictions can be applied without violating there own terms.
Licenses where you cannot apply these terms are all excluded. That is,
it is your inability to apply these terms that determines what can or
can't be combined in something you can continue to share.


Instead, "work as a whole" means the functional work that is a sum of
all of the parts. Since this meaning does not require that all parts
have the same license, it allows for the work as a whole to contain some
parts under different but compatible terms. Thus, a GPL protected work

may contain BSD licensed code.


In the case of the 'modified' BSD, it may.

> The BSD license does not place any
requirements on distribution that the GPL does not, so it is compatible.


No, the reason it is compatible is that the modified BSD license does
not contain any terms that prohibit you from applying the GPL terms over it.


When you distribute a work that is GPL licensed and contains BSD
licensed code, you are meeting the terms of the BSD license and are
allowed to distribute that code.


Yes, but if you distribute a portion without applying the additional GPL
restrictions you are violating your agreement that was required to be
permitted to distribute the GPL portion.


However, since you can not change the
license on a work to which you don't hold copyright, both you and your
users are distributing the BSD licensed code under the BSD license.


Yes, someone who had no need to distribute the GPL-encumbered portion
would not have to make that same agreement and could thus pluck the BSD
covered portion back out under its original terms.


The terms of the GPL state that (among other things), you must
distribute the source code corresponding to any modified or unmodified
"work as a whole" that you distribute. That means that if you start
with a GPL licensed work that contains BSD licensed code, then among
other options, you may:
* distribute the unmodified work, containing the compatibly licensed
parts.


Covered by GPL terms.

* distribute the GPL licensed code without the BSD licensed parts. The
result may not function, and I'm not sure why anyone would want to
receive a non-functional work from you, but you have that right.


Covered by GPL terms.

* distribute a compiled version of the unmodified work. In this case,
the terms of the GPL require that you also distribute or offer to
distribute the source code to the "work as a whole". That means that
you may not withhold any of the source code, or offer any of the source
code under an incompatible license. It does not mean that each part of
the source code must be GPL licensed.


You aren't reading that license. If you need GPL-provided permissions,
you must agree to apply GPL terms to your own actions. A recipient is
not bound by this unless they themselves need GPL-provided permissions.


* distribute a compiled version of a modified (derived) work. In this
case, you must still distribute or offer to distribute the complete
source code, and any changes that you've made must be under a compatible
license.


Binaries aren't a special case other than requiring source to be
provided too.


None of the terms of the GPL require that you give up the rights that
you were granted by the copyright holder who gave you -- either directly
or indirectly -- code under a compatible license.


Yes they do. The concept of 'compatible license' shows specifically how
you must give them up. Compatible licenses are ones that permit you to
do what the GPL demands. If you weren't required to apply the GPL terms
to all parts, then all other licenses would be compatible.


It merely requires
that when you distribute a work, then you must meet the distribution
terms for the entire work.


And those terms include agreeing to section 2b.

Even after distributing a work under the
GPL, you may extract the parts under a compatible license and distribute
those parts, only, under the terms of their own license. The recipients
of your GPL licensed work as a whole may do the same.


If, and only if, they have no need to agree to the GPL terms. Doing
both at the same time is a contradiction in logic and dishonest even if
you are unlikely to be sued over it.


No other interpretation of the terms of the GPL is allowed by copyright
law. You may continue to argue otherwise, but you're arguing about an
imaginary situation which does not exist and can not exist under
existing copyright law.


If the GPL restrictions do not have to be applied to all components,
then under your interpretation, what would determine license
compatibility? For example, why can't I include a proprietary component
and distribute only to people where they also have the right to that
component under the terms of some other license? My interpretation, and
what the words actually say, is that you must apply exactly the GPL
terms to all parts regardless of any other terms that might permit the
next recipient to get a copy. And the list of compatible licenses is a
direct side effect of that requirement.


--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com

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