Re: A fucking bunch of lying pussies

From: donkey (donkey*nospam*_at_ntl.sympatico.ca)
Date: 05/31/04 

Date: Mon, 31 May 2004 01:44:19 -0400

Hi The Sage,

Those quotes were not from The Wannabe, his only contribution were the
insults and swear words. Most of the ones that got him pissed of were mine.

Well, the clause you posted does say "do not apply to those sections
when you distribute them as separate works", that would imply that they
cannot be part of the source of the main program but only as a
"separate" program. This is what I indicated in my post. In other words
you cannot have freeware sections integrated in a GPL program, the two
licenses are not compatible. Also any use of freeware components in a
GPL program could be construed as an attempt to abrogate the authors
copyright, even as freeware without restrictions, the original copyright
holder still has rights under the law, by including his source in a GPL
application you may be affecting those rights without his permission.
For example if you were to include his code in a GPL application he
might no longer have the right to use it in a commercial app without
violating your license agreement, something you are not allowed to do
under any circumstances.

Also the GPL has little to do with freeware and is certainly not
"basically the same thing". Freeware is free by definition and that
includes free for any use. GPL is self propagating restricted open
source, a very different thing.

Donkey

The_Sage wrote:
>>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
> =============================================================