Alan Cox wrote:
I'm not the one who reversed the meaning of free to mean restricted. And
the GPL is simply restrictions.
Restrictions to stop abuse, removal of rights by third parties and
to produce greater freedom.
They reduce both innovation and freedom. If the original TCP/IP
implementation had been encumbered with GPL restrictions, we probably
would not be able to have this conversation today.
You could say the same of the US consitution.
After all why should the president not be able to cancel elections, they
interfere with his freedom to innovate foreign policy.
Be careful what you suggest... The constitution hasn't stopped the
administration from creating a special class of people who are permitted
to invade privacy with no balancing oversight. I'd expect them to be
using any information they collect to suit their own agenda.
of works - or keeping themselves from being improved in other ways. The
FSF even claims that it is illegal to distribute components separately
that may be combined with GPL'd parts unless you apply the same
restrictions. That's like saying I can't give someone a cover for their
copyrighted book or a frame for their painting.
You should also perhaps have asked for a beginners book on copyright law
from Santa. Your analogies are totally broken. A frame is not a
derivative work, nor is a cover (usually). The GPL likewise does not
cover non-derivative works.
I'm not aware of any books that would show a court's decision on a case
like the FSF's claim in the RIPEM situation (a claim that code
containing no covered code was derivative).
If you take from another work whether you make a cover by printing out a
photo from inside a book and colouring it in, or by using GPL code in
your code you end up with a derived work and the original author has
rights not too.
It is clearly not legal to include a copy of covered works (although I
contend that it harms all concerned when the same user is allowed to
have a copy of the separate individual work anyway). However, I haven't
seen anything except the FSF claim that when a user obtains his own copy
of a covered work that its copyright can cover some other work written
by someone else and distributed separately. Has there ever been a court
decision showing something not containing any covered material to be a