Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: GPL only modules | From | Alexandre Oliva <> | Date | Mon, 18 Dec 2006 18:37:31 -0200 |
| |
On Dec 18, 2006, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> wrote:
> That said, I think they are still pushing the "you don't have any rights > unless we give you additional rights explicitly" angle a bit too hard.
Maybe it's just a matter of perception. I don't see it that way from the inside.
How about http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/rt/readsay.html?filename=gplv3-draft-2&id=2238
Would it help address your mis-perception?
> But I GUARANTEE you that it makes more sense than the "no rights" > approach
Yeah, but that's a Straw Man.
> and I GUARANTEE you that it makes more sense than thinking that "ld > is magic, and makes a derived work" approach.
I believe you and I have already shot down the 'ld-is-like-mkisofs' argument.
>> In fact, it can't possibly be exempt by this paragraph in clause 2 of >> the GPL:
>> In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the >> Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a >> volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other >> work under the scope of this License.
> This is actually a red herring. The way the GPLv2 _defines_ "work" and > "Program" is by derived "derived work".
No, that's how it defines 'work based on the Program', see the quoted portion below.
> You're confused by _your_ interpretation of "work" and "Program". You > think that "Program" means "binary", because that's you think normally.
I can't see where you drew that conclusion from, but it's an incorrect conclusion. Program can denote the sources as much as the binaries.
> But the GPLv2 actually defines that "Program" is just the "derivative work > under copyright law".
> Really. Go look. It's right there at the very top, in section 0.
/me looks again
0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License. The "Program", below, refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program" means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another language. (Hereinafter, translation is included without limitation in the term "modification".)
> In other words, in the GPL, "Program" does NOT mean "binary". Never has.
Agreed. So what? How does this relate with the point above?
The binary is a Program, as much as the sources are a Program. Both forms are subject to copyright law and to the license, in spite of http://www.fsfla.org/?q=en/node/128#1
> And in fact, it wouldn't make sense if it did, since you can use the GPL > for other things than just programs (and people have).
People do many odd things. How do you define source code and object code to other things that are not programs.
> So you _always_ get back to the question: what is "derivative"? And the > GPLv2 doesn't actually even say anything about that, but EXPLICITLY says > that it is left to copyright law.
Exactly. No disagreement here.
I'm not disputing this fact.
In the point you quoted above, I was only disputing your argument of "mere aggregation" in the context of dynamic linking.
-- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |