[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Fedora Freedom and linux-libre



On Jun 18, 2008, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell gmail com> wrote:

> Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> 
>>> Let's assume that I have obtained my copy of several components under
>>> any license but the GPL, and so have a lot of other people.
>> 
>> Still missing the point.  Don't assuming you have a license that says
>> other things.

> I don't have to assume.  I have other licenses.

In this case they say nothing as to the case, they're just confusing
you.

Here, take this program here:

http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/papers/vta/example.c

What do you think you're entitled to do with it as it stands?

Now, if I tell you, I license it to you under the GPL, and you accept
it.  what you you think you're no longer entitled to do with it?

> No one but the FSF claims that a patch is a derived work

How would you defend the claim that something that literally copies
portions of a copyrightable work is not?

> or a separate component that links 2 others together but doesn't
> contain a copy of the others.

Even dynamic linking copies portions of the dynamic libraries.  We've
covered that already.

>> Try to create a derived work based on say Microsoft Windows or
>> Microsoft Word, if you happen to have them around, and to distribute
>> it, and see what happens.

> I'm not sure what you are talking about.

Try creating a work based on internal DLLs, for which you have no
"developer" permissions.

>>>> This would be a prohibition of the GPL.

>>> Yes, in case it wasn't clear before, the specific prohibition that I
>>> consider unethical is that it takes away my choice to share my own
>>> work.

>> It doesn't.  Your own original work can't possibly be a derived work.

> Difference of opinion, I guess. The FSF says otherwise

No, it doesn't, and the GPL itself confirms that.  There's a
difference between "your own original work" and "the derived work you
created out of a pre-existing third-party's work".  The above is about
the former, as you can probably tell from the similarity in spelling ;-)

> if the resulting 'work as a whole' would be be a derived work,

Then it's not "your own original work"

> Without the GPL, I can give you a copy of my original work that
> links to that library

Only if the copyright holder of the library granted you permission to
distribute your derived work.  Same as with the GPL.  That's how
copyright law's restrictions work.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva         http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist  oliva {lsd ic unicamp br, gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member       ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer   aoliva {redhat com, gcc.gnu.org}


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]