Re: A fucking bunch of lying pussies

From: The_Sage (theeSage_at_azrmci.net)
Date: 05/31/04 

Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 22:06:35 -0700

>Reply to article by: The Wannabee <faq@.@.@.@.@.@szmyggenpv.com>
>Date written: Mon, 31 May 2004 03:33:54 +0200
>MsgID:<opr8ubysr2x4k3gu@news.broadpark.no>

Please elaborate Wannabee, as your point does not seem to be valid...

GPL and copyright freeware are basically the same thing -- I can modify my copy
of the source code to my heart's content, as long as I give credit where credit
is due. This is just legal common sense. What that also means is that an
application can be both part GPL and part freeware without ever violating the
GPL license. The GPL states,

   "If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and
   can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves,
   then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you
   distribute them as separate works" (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html)

So obviously GPL does not require all your modifications to be GPL, only that
they must be made public. It is possible to add code to your GPL program and
then restrict distribution. As the GPL states,

   "If the distribution and/or use of the Program is restricted in certain
   countries either by patents or by copyrighted interfaces, the original
   copyright holder who places the Program under this License may add an
   explicit geographical distribution limitation excluding those countries, so
   that distribution is permitted only in or among countries not thus excluded.
   In such case, this License incorporates the limitation as if written in the
   body of this License" (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html)

This license allows for the incorporation of public source code that otherwise
could never exist due to legal issues. If the copyright freeware does not
provide for the same terms as the GPL shown above, than clearly the copyright
freeware is the inferior license as it has no reasonable exceptions that would
still also promote the open source movement.

In fact, it is possible for me to even incorporate commercial source code (ie --
confidential, secret, or non-public source code) if I get specific permission to
do so from the patent/copyright holder. Since GPL specifically states that if
you use their source code, than all of the source code in your application must
be made public, than I can use the publically available commerical source code
as a tutorial to create my own interface without having to steal anyone's hard
work. This promotes evolution and universality of the source code, something
that copyright freeware cannot do as it has no protection for other license
holder's to incorporate their source code without giving up *their* rights. GPL
allows the developer to keep their own rights yet at the same time benefit the
public by making their source code public for posterity.

In other words, the GPL is an extremely fair license that actively promotes open
source freeware and I have yet to find a legitimate complaint against it.
Copyright freeware only promotes developers to use the code as they wish, with
or without publishing their source, but if they publish, they give up their own
rights to whatever license they have in their own software.

The Sage

=============================================================
My Home Page : http://members.cox.net/the.sage

"My friend plans to make a fortune with his invention. It's a
big metal box with a slot on one side and a sign that says
'How gullible are you? To find out, insert $50.'" -- COMEDY
COMES CLEAN, by Bill Jones
=============================================================

Quantcast