Les Mikesell wrote:
Gordon Messmer wrote:
That statement is a little ambiguous. The GPL does not have any power
which copyright law does not grant. Specifically, it can not change
the terms of work licensed under any terms other than its own and it
can not force you to accept any other or additional terms on such work.
The GPL doesn't change terms on anything else and I've never implied
that it can or does.
You have repeatedly insisted exactly that.
> However, it only grants permissions beyond
copyright restrictions if you comply with its terms
There's a cost associated with someone using a product that someone else
created? Shocking!
If the FSF doesn't not believe that the work-as-a-whole clause
actually means the terms must cover the work as a whole, why don't
they make another license that says what they want it to mean?
You're still not getting what "work as a whole" means. First, you
have to understand that legal interpretation of terms is not like
English interpretation. Legal terms have specific meanings which are
sometimes
different than English meanings because language tends to change and
evolve with people's use of it. Legal terms do not change.
I understand that there can be some contention about what a 'derived
work' is. But there can be no confusion about what the GPL says about
the components, once you agree that a work is derived and thus
encumbered by the terms.
You're changing the basis of your argument, but you're not providing any
more or better evidence for the position that you're arguing. The GPL
does not and can not "encumber" works that were included under
compatible licenses. Their original terms continue to apply. This is a
fundamental component of copyright law.
In the context of a legal interpretation of a distribution license
(copyright license), "work as a whole" does not mean each individual
part.
Of course it does, or proprietary parts could be included - or linkages
that make them a required part of the work as a whole.
Proprietary parts can not be included because the GPL specifically
prohibits terms more restrictive than its own to be applied to the work
as a whole.
I'll reiterate my previous point: The work as a whole is a functional
sum of all of the parts. If some component of a work contains
restrictive licensing, then the sum of the licenses would be more
restrictive than the GPL. Since the GPL forbids this, you may not
distribute a work that includes GPL licensed parts and proprietary parts.
Exactly the same thing, said another way: Including a proprietary
component would create a de facto proprietary work as a whole. The
terms of the GPL prohibit using GPL components in a proprietary work as
a whole.
"Work as a whole" does not mean all of the components, it means the sum
of the components. A work which is partially GPL and partially some
other compatible license does not become licensed only under the GPL by
law, by intent, or by magic. The work is licensed under several
licenses, each of which apply to separate components. The terms of the
GPL don't override the terms of any other license; instead they prohibit
creating a whole work which includes components under incompatible licenses.
In other words, when a work contains GPL and BSD licensed code, and you
distribute that work to another party, you are required to offer them
the source code to both the GPL and BSD licensed code. This is not
because the terms of the GPL apply in some way to the BSD components, it
is because if you do not agree to distribute the source code to the BSD
components, then you aren't allowed to distribute the GPL components either.
None of the terms of the GPL require that you give up the rights that
you were granted by the copyright holder who gave you -- either
directly or indirectly -- code under a compatible license.
Yes they do. The concept of 'compatible license' shows specifically how
you must give them up. Compatible licenses are ones that permit you to
do what the GPL demands. If you weren't required to apply the GPL terms
to all parts, then all other licenses would be compatible.
That argument is founded on the incorrect understanding that "work as a
whole" means all of the parts individually, rather than the sum of the
parts. The former meaning is unenforceable under copyright law.
Even after distributing a work under the GPL, you may extract the
parts under a compatible license and distribute those parts, only,
under the terms of their own license. The recipients of your GPL
licensed work as a whole may do the same.
If, and only if, they have no need to agree to the GPL terms. Doing
both at the same time is a contradiction in logic and dishonest even if
you are unlikely to be sued over it.
I think you have a warped sense of honesty. As a developer, and as a
vocal advocate of the GPL as a license, I can't imagine anything that's
dishonest about using someone else's code according to the terms of
*their* license.
That is, if I receive a work composed of both GPL and BSD parts, and I
want to use the BSD parts under the BSD license, there is nothing
remotely illegal or unethical about doing so. I'm obeying the terms of
the license set forth by the only person with the legal or moral right
to dictate them.
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
