Re: future of quail
On 2011-02-15, David Kastrup <dak(a)gnu.org> wrote:
Julian Bradfield <jcb+xeb(a)jcbradfield.org> writes:
> The GPL is carefully, deliberately and explicitly designed so that
> incorporating a piece of GPL code into any other distributed piece of
> software makes that software have the GPL.
No, that is simply wrong. The GPL is carefully, deliberately and
explicitly designed so that you can only redistribute software based on
the GPL under the GPL, or not at all.
Er, that's what I said. If you include GPL code, and distribute your
software, it must be under the GPL. And it's not "based on". The GPL
defines a modified work as anything that involves copying in a sense
controlled by copyright law. Ten lines of code suffices - even one, in
theory in the UK. That's why Stephen is being so careful about GPLv3.
There is _no_, I repeat, _no_ automatism with which any software of
yours comes under the GPL magically. There is no infection. If _you_
choose to infect the GPLed software with material that you never want to
Infection is infection, whether accidental or deliberate. Maybe you
should read up on how genetic engineering is done. A major technique
is deliberate and controllable infection by viruses.
You don't need to, and you still will be able to do anything with
your
software that a combination with proprietary software will let you do,
most likely more.
Such as distributed closed-source software and charging for licensing?
An infection/contamination which you can switch on and off at will
even
after first full contact.
Yes. See genetic engineering above - damn useful concept.
But the only reason I can do that is that I write all my own code (for
the projects in question), and don't re-use anybody else's, and only
rely on LGPL libraries.
Who am you to tell them that licenses that can have all the ill
effects
of computer viruses and worse are _not_ a virus, while a license that
does not, _is_?
I am one who know the difference between the denotation of a word and
its connotations.
>> The right answer is "how are any of the GPL's terms
more restricting
>> than those of software licenses you don't call names?". And of
>> course
>
> GPL is more restrictive than BSD. BSD does not require you to release
> your own software under BSD if you incorporate BSD software.
>
> Do you deny that?
No, you don't.
Where is the point if a license does not require me to heed any
terms,
but if I actually use those permissions in order to slap the GPL on
software derived from it, everybody will be calling me an immoral pig
and thief?
Er, the BSD license allows you do that. Why would anybody call you an
immoral pig and a thief? The whole point of BSD is to allow people to
use software freely, whether they want to push a proprietary agenda or
an FSF agenda, or just want to get on with the job.
It is obvious that you are not inclined thinking about who to call
what
for what reason. But probably somebody else will think twice before
following your example.
You should stop getting so excited about an off the cuff comment on a
small (usually) friendly mailing list expressing my distaste for the
immense waste of XEmacs developer time caused by the GPL2 -> GPL3
transition.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta