Fedora Freedom and linux-libre

[Les Mikesell]

Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> 
> 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?

Assuming it is permitted for me to get a copy in the first place, then I 
have fair use of it.  I could link my copy with anything else I wanted. 
   And I could give away my work that called it and some other code.

> 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?

Then I couldn't give my additional work away to other people to use with 
their own copies of your work and third party libraries.  They could 
hire me to re-invent it, but I couldn't distribute my work.

>> 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?

It's fair use, but I'd settle for being able to do a line-numbered edit 
script that didn't not copy any original material.  Or a completely 
separate work that linked two differently licensed libraries that are 
not included.

>> 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.

Yes, we covered the fact that everyone else permits it.

>>> 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.

Again, I have never heard of any prohibition against sharing such a 
thing with anyone who has their own copy of all required components.

>>> 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"

Define whose work it is, then.  Take the case of an original program 
that links with two other libraries. It is entirely conceivable and 
fairly likly that compatible GPL and non-GPL libraries will be available 
and it is the end users choice at compile/run time.  Who owns this work?

It is a matter of circumstance whether the alternatives exist or not and 
you may not even know.  And such a bizarre definition changes from day 
to day.  One day the RIPEM code was a derived work because it linked to 
the gmp library.  With no changes to the code itself, it became not a 
derived work because the unrestricted fgmp library existed - even though 
no one really used it.

> 
>> 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.

That's just not true.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell at gmail.com