headers
mike4ty4 | 2 Sep 2006 04:38
Picon
Favicon

Re: GNU licenses


David Kastrup wrote:
> mike4ty4 <at> yahoo.com writes:
>
> > I've been wondering about the GNU software and documentation license.
> > For one thing, although the goals are decent, I don't like what I
> > percieve as it's "viral" nature.
>
> Too bad, since it is that which ensures the status.
>
> > Furthermore, does this actually exist, anyway? For example, if I
> > write a 1,000 page book, and take ONE PARAGRAPH of a GNU document
> > and stick it in, does this mean all 1,000 pages of MY OWN ORIGINAL
> > WORK are all suddenly GNU, or can I just mark that 1 paragraph as
> > such, while keeping copyright to my _original work_?
>
> Nothing ever is "all suddenly GNU".  Everything written by yourself is
> yours to license at your choice.  Like everything written by some GNU
> maintainer is his to license at his choice.  And his choice is "if you
> make this or parts of it a part of something else, I grant you
> permission for that only if you license your stuff under the GPL."
>
> You are free to decide _not_ to license your stuff under the GPL, but
> then you have no business sticking GPLed software in it.  If you do,
> this does not make your software GPLed (this never happens
> automatically), but it means that you are breaking the license of the
> stuff you use, and you can be sued to amend this.  It will usually be
> your choice whether you amend by removing the GPLed part, or by
> complying to the license.
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 38 comments |
headers
David Kastrup | 2 Sep 2006 09:30
X-Face
Picon
Picon

Re: GNU licenses

mike4ty4 <at> yahoo.com writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
>> mike4ty4 <at> yahoo.com writes:
>>
>> > I've been wondering about the GNU software and documentation license.
>> > For one thing, although the goals are decent, I don't like what I
>> > percieve as it's "viral" nature.
>>
>> Too bad, since it is that which ensures the status.
>>
>> > Furthermore, does this actually exist, anyway? For example, if I
>> > write a 1,000 page book, and take ONE PARAGRAPH of a GNU document
>> > and stick it in, does this mean all 1,000 pages of MY OWN ORIGINAL
>> > WORK are all suddenly GNU, or can I just mark that 1 paragraph as
>> > such, while keeping copyright to my _original work_?
>>
>> Nothing ever is "all suddenly GNU".  Everything written by yourself is
>> yours to license at your choice.  Like everything written by some GNU
>> maintainer is his to license at his choice.  And his choice is "if you
>> make this or parts of it a part of something else, I grant you
>> permission for that only if you license your stuff under the GPL."
>>
>> You are free to decide _not_ to license your stuff under the GPL, but
>> then you have no business sticking GPLed software in it.  If you do,
>> this does not make your software GPLed (this never happens
>> automatically), but it means that you are breaking the license of the
>> stuff you use, and you can be sued to amend this.  It will usually be
>> your choice whether you amend by removing the GPLed part, or by
>> complying to the license.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 20 comments |
headers
Wei Mingzhi | 2 Sep 2006 10:04
Favicon

Re: GNU licenses

If you don't allow me using your code, then I don't allow you using
our code too. That's just fair.
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
John Hasler | 2 Sep 2006 14:04

Re: GNU licenses

David Kastrup writes:
> But the one thing that you can't do is take his material and do with
> it as you like without heeding its license.

mike4ty4 writes:
> But why forbid it?

To increase the amount of Free software in the world.  You may choose not
to participate.

> ...if I use a GNU library with my non- GNU program, does this mean that I
> have to GNU the whole thing or I'm breaking the license?

If you incorporate GPL code into your program you must GPL the whole
thing.  If you link to a LGPL library you do not.

> It doesn't seem like a good deal to me...

You are free to refuse it.

> why do you want to make other people's code free as a "price" for using
> "free" code?

Why do you want to make people give you money as a "price" for using your
code?
--

-- 
John Hasler 
john <at> dhh.gt.org
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 15 comments |
headers
David Kastrup | 2 Sep 2006 19:14
X-Face
Picon
Picon

Re: web services and GPL

josh.kuo <at> gmail.com writes:

> I have read some of the posts in this group that deals with web
> services, as well as the GNU FAQ
> (http:/www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html), but could not find the
> answer I am looking for.
>
> I'll quickly describe my situation: My boss is a supporter of free
> software, and with his blessing, I have licensed all my work under
> GPL (not LGPL).  As part of our infrastructure, I have also wrapped
> some of the code in a web service, and thus used as library by other
> code or system.  My understanding from reading the FAQ is, anything
> that uses this web service (I see the web service like a library),

The law doesn't.

> must then also be GPL'ed:
>
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfLibraryIsGPL

Nonsense.  The web service is provided by your company, under
conditions set by your company.  Whether or not it is implemented with
GPLed components is irrelevant to the customer, as long as he does not
get physical access to the executables in question.

> Not a big deal, since this is a company internal setup, and not a
> problem because I have GPL'ed all of the pieces.  However, recently,
> another company aquired us.  It is very likely that some of my web
> services will be accessed by non-GPL'ed code.
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
josh.kuo | 2 Sep 2006 20:05
Picon

Re: web services and GPL

Thank you David for the quick and detailed response, I really do
appreciate it.

> > that uses this web service (I see the web service like a library),
>
> The law doesn't.

Thank you for clearning that up for me :-)

> _Unless_ it contains GPLed (or otherwise licensed) software from
> _third_ parties: in that case, of course, you need to heed the
> licenses of those parties, whatever they may happen to be.

Some pieces do use GPL'ed components.  Thank you for explaining in such
detail, obviously, I don't know much about licensing...  I am just
doing some research now so if the new boss asks, I know how to answer
these questions.   Again, thank you very much :-)
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
David Kastrup | 2 Sep 2006 20:17
X-Face
Picon
Picon

Re: web services and GPL

josh.kuo <at> gmail.com writes:

> Thank you David for the quick and detailed response, I really do
> appreciate it.
>
>> > that uses this web service (I see the web service like a library),
>>
>> The law doesn't.
>
> Thank you for clearning that up for me :-)
>
>> _Unless_ it contains GPLed (or otherwise licensed) software from
>> _third_ parties: in that case, of course, you need to heed the
>> licenses of those parties, whatever they may happen to be.
>
> Some pieces do use GPL'ed components.

This will come into play when you plan distributing or licensing the
software to others.  In that case, you have no choice except licensing
under the GPL (or risk getting sued by the authors of the GPLed
components).

If you merely use this as the code for a service of yours and don't
distribute or license the code itself, it should be irrelevant.

> Thank you for explaining in such detail, obviously, I don't know
> much about licensing...  I am just doing some research now so if the
> new boss asks, I know how to answer these questions.  Again, thank
> you very much :-)
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
mike4ty4 | 3 Sep 2006 09:19
Picon
Favicon

Re: GNU licenses


David Kastrup wrote:
> mike4ty4 <at> yahoo.com writes:
>
> > David Kastrup wrote:
> >> mike4ty4 <at> yahoo.com writes:
> >>
> >> > I've been wondering about the GNU software and documentation license.
> >> > For one thing, although the goals are decent, I don't like what I
> >> > percieve as it's "viral" nature.
> >>
> >> Too bad, since it is that which ensures the status.
> >>
> >> > Furthermore, does this actually exist, anyway? For example, if I
> >> > write a 1,000 page book, and take ONE PARAGRAPH of a GNU document
> >> > and stick it in, does this mean all 1,000 pages of MY OWN ORIGINAL
> >> > WORK are all suddenly GNU, or can I just mark that 1 paragraph as
> >> > such, while keeping copyright to my _original work_?
> >>
> >> Nothing ever is "all suddenly GNU".  Everything written by yourself is
> >> yours to license at your choice.  Like everything written by some GNU
> >> maintainer is his to license at his choice.  And his choice is "if you
> >> make this or parts of it a part of something else, I grant you
> >> permission for that only if you license your stuff under the GPL."
> >>
> >> You are free to decide _not_ to license your stuff under the GPL, but
> >> then you have no business sticking GPLed software in it.  If you do,
> >> this does not make your software GPLed (this never happens
> >> automatically), but it means that you are breaking the license of the
> >> stuff you use, and you can be sued to amend this.  It will usually be
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 19 comments |
headers
mike4ty4 | 3 Sep 2006 09:24
Picon
Favicon

Re: GNU licenses


Wei Mingzhi wrote:
> If you don't allow me using your code, then I don't allow you using
> our code too. That's just fair.

I don't know. To me it seems like a way to slowly strip owners of their
rights to their original works. I can let you use my own code, but that
does not mean I have to require you to give me yours (provided no
GNU stuff is involved). Your code is your ORIGINAL WORK, and I
don't see why I have to have you make it free to me.
Permalink | Reply | 48 comments |
headers
mike4ty4 | 3 Sep 2006 09:34
Picon
Favicon

Re: GNU licenses


John Hasler wrote:
> David Kastrup writes:
> > But the one thing that you can't do is take his material and do with
> > it as you like without heeding its license.
>
> mike4ty4 writes:
> > But why forbid it?
>
> To increase the amount of Free software in the world.  You may choose not
> to participate.
>

Well, I can make both free and non-free software, at least I should be
able
to. I guess that means just to steer clear of GNU code for the non-free
projects. Which raises another question: What happens if I learn
something
from the GNU software, like a "trick" or a more efficient way of
programming
some algorithm? If I use that METHOD/KNOWLEDGE even if not the ORIGINAL

CODE does this mean I have to GNU?

> > ...if I use a GNU library with my non- GNU program, does this mean that I
> > have to GNU the whole thing or I'm breaking the license?
>
> If you incorporate GPL code into your program you must GPL the whole
> thing.  If you link to a LGPL library you do not.
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 14 comments |

Gmane