Re: A fucking bunch of lying pussies

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

Date: Mon, 31 May 2004 13:47:49 -0400

The_Sage wrote:
>>Reply to article by: donkey <donkey*nospam*@ntl.sympatico.ca>
>>Date written: Mon, 31 May 2004 01:44:19 -0400
>>MsgID:<3Dzuc.79843$tb4.3067299@news20.bellglobal.com>
>
>
>>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.
>
>
> Quotes please. I gave you a quote from the GPL license that states that the two
> licenses are compatible, so maybe you found a loophole in the license...unless
> your loophole is imaginary?
>

Umm it was your quote I was commenting on, "Separate Works" seems pretty
clear to me and it was you who used that quote from the GPL not me.

>
>>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.
>
>
> If the freeware is public domain, then it is perfectly legitimate to use that
> code where one sees fit, so long as the copyright isn't violated by claiming
> false authorship or by not giving credit where credit is due. That is the only
> way to violate a copyright. Unless the freeware license specfically states, "Do
> not use this code in any GPL work", it is reasonable and fair to do so.
>

This is absolutely true and earlier this morning in the thread in
question I corrected it in a post. I spoke to the Canadian Intellectual
Properties Office Copyright expert for more than half an hour today and
found that I was wrong. I freely admit when I was wrong, but after all
it was only my opinion and understanding based on what I had read just
as yours are your opinions and understandings, unless ofcourse you are a
copyright lawyer.

There is a proviso however. The CIPO also said that if the GPL code
required the freeware for it's functionality then it could be considered
a derivative work and the GPL agreement would be unenforceable. But they
said that that would be a decision for the courts based on individual
merit. It is for this reason that the I believe the GPL specifically
states that the freeware be included separately.

The CIPO said that it is generally good practice not to use freeware in
GPL and not to use GPL in freeware as the licenses may be incompatible.

>
>>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.
>
>
> Since incorporating freeware code into GPL code does not in any way, shape, or
> form, negate, erase, or nullify the freeware license, that is completely
> incorrect.
>
>
>>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.
>
>
> By your defintion, even freeware is not free since it has a copyright
> restriction. But this is besides the point, the point being you are now
> contradicting yourself: how can freeware be free for any use if, as you claim
> without evidence, it cannot be incorporated into GPL applications? That seems
> very restrictive for FREEware, but rather than answer that question with some
> mearsay and hearsay, instead, please quote the GPL to validate your claims, that
> way we can judge if your argument is based on blind faith assertion or actual
> fact.
>

When I release a program I release it without restrictions. If you wish
to use it in a GPL program and can do so without abrogating the original
freeware license that's perfectly fine by me. This is very different
from the GPL. However, because the GPL is a very restrictive license it
makes it difficult all by itself, it as if I make a round peg and say
you are free to put it anywhere you like, but if you only have square
holes, that's not my fault is it. The GPL limits itself, that is
designed into the license.

> The GPL states,
>
> "If you wish to incorporate parts of the Program into other free programs
> whose distribution conditions are different, write to the author to ask for
> permission. For software which is copyrighted by the Free Software
> Foundation, write to the Free Software Foundation; we sometimes make
> exceptions for this. Our decision will be guided by the two goals of
> preserving the free status of all derivatives of our free software and of
> promoting the sharing and reuse of software generally"
> (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html)
>
> which makes the GPL licensing even more flexible than freeware licensing. Since
> freeware has no provision for enforcing the propagation of the freeware
> movement, as GPL does, freeware does the public no long lasting favor, and that
> makes the GPL superior to freeware...not to mention, GPL has a slew of lawyers
> to back up it's license whereas freeware, at the most, has only one.
>
> The Sage
>

That says absolutely nothing at all, was there a reason you posted it?
It does not say anything about what is required to make the two licenses
compatible or even something so simple as if it is allowed in all
circumstances. Just saying "Contact the author" is not a response to
anything and certainly demonstrates the intentional vagueness of the
"Great Programming Lie" license. And yes, I do realize that the GPL main
reason for existance is to keep lawyers rich and feed IBM and SUN
Microsystems with a free OS so they can lay off programmers, thank you.

Donkey.

Quantcast