Re: Licensing Problems with Debian Packages (Was Re: Copyright lawyers analysis of Andreas Pour's Interpretation)
Raul Miller wrote:
> > You've been implying that the irreversible change mentioned in Section
> > 3 is a requirement for cases where libc is used as a Library.
On Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 12:27:45AM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> Well, it seems you misquoting me is becoming an annoying ritual. What
> I said is that under the interpretation -- an interpretation that
> obviously is not mine -- that Section 3(a)/Section 2(b) of the GPL
> require the "complete source code" -- including library source code
> (like qt) -- to be licensed under the GPL, libc would have to be
> licensed under the GPL. The next step in the reasoning is that if libc
> has to be licensed under the GPL, you have to go through the Section 3
> (LGPL) conversion.
Except that libc (or any other LGPLed library) is not the complete source
code for grep (or any other GPLed program which might use libc or some
other LGPLed library). You do realize that, I hope.
When applying the GPL when multiple licenses are involved means that the
work as a whole is a collective work, and the individual licenses remain.
> > But this third paragraph clearly indicates that Section 3 is
> > optional. That the use of Section 3 is for cases where the code (for
> > example, the lgpled libc code) would not be not used as a library.
>
> It's just an example. Anyway, I don't think libc has to be licensed
> under the GPL when linked with a GPL Program, for the very same reason
> I don't think Qt has to be licensed under the GPL when linked with a
> GPL Program.
It's statements like this that make me think you don't understand
collective copyrights. Why else would you bother making such assertions?
> > [For that matter, the first sentence of the first paragraph also
> > clearly indicates that Section 3 is optional, but the third
> > paragraph has the advantage of showing why the option is available.]
> >
> > To use a phrasing similar to what you've been using in other
> > contexts: a Library need not be a Program.
>
> Good. So you now agree that the "complete source code" of Section 3(a)
> of the GPL does not have to be licensed under the GPL. But no, of
> course you don't.
Once again, libc is not the complete source code. In some examples,
it's a part of the complete source code, but the individual parts get
to retain their own licenses.
> What I find fascinating is that after all these e-mails debating with
> you, I really don't know what you think. And that, my friend, means I
> really should not be debating with you anymore.
What I find mystifying is not that we disagree, but that when I try to
pin down the point on which we disagree -- when I try to re-state it in
my own words -- that you disagree with me on what issue it is that we're
disagreeing on. It's as if you really agree with me on all the issues,
but you've simply chosen to disagree with me on general principles.
--
Raul
Reply to: