Re: Netatalk and OpenSSL licencing
> > On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 03:34:28PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > > I don't think I've said anything new or strange about the GPL--it causes
> > > rewriting, it's designed to do so, and I think it's fair to acknowledge that.
> On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 09:27:27PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > The GPL tends to cause rewriting to be done earlier than otherwise.
> >
> > Copyright law causes the rewriting.
On Sat, Aug 21, 2004 at 04:35:21PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> No.
No?
> Copyright law only causes things if copyright holders cause it
> to (or fails to give any license at all).
Huh? It's not the copyright holders who do the rewriting.
Rewriting happens when people other than the copyright holders
find the copyright on some work unacceptable. And, since different
people will use different copyrights sooner or later, someone
will find the copyright on some work unacceptable.
> The GPL's copyright terms deliberately force rewriting in as many
> cases as possible, above and beyond most other free software licenses.
I'm not sure I understand your point here.
Here's how I understand this:
For any specific class of user (as exemplfied by their preferred
copyright), the maximum number of times something needs to be rewritten
is once.
Therefore, you're claiming that the GPL deliberately forces rewriting
once.
But this doesn't really make sense, since it's the conflict between the
GPL and some other license [which almost always comes from someone with
a proprietary interest] which forces the rewrite.
> I've been in situations where every piece of software in use was GPL-
> compatible, but contractual terms or other circumstances prevent following
> it.
I don't understand this either.
You're claiming that users of GPL'd software can't follow the terms of
the GPL when all the software is GPL'd?
> I guess you'd then say "contract law causes the rewriting". I
> just can't agree with constantly shifting the cause of the rewriting
> away from the GPL, even though the GPL is *specifically* designed to cause
> it.
I don't understand what your claim here is.
It looks like you're talking about a conflict of intentions between
authors of copylefted software and authors of proprietary softwere,
where the poor proprietary software authors are forced to reimplement
something which has already been written by copyleft authors.
It might be that instead of "authors of proprietary software", you're
talking about "authors of software who feel it's important that their
work can be incorporated into proprietary software". But if contract
law is in play independent of any copyright then there must be some sort
of proprietary interest at work.
> (Again, to be clear, I'm not trying to blacken the GPL, here: it does
> cause rewriting, but it does so with good intent and in fact, very often,
> with good results.)
Well... aside from the fact that I seem to be having problems
understanding every preceeding sentence you wrote in this message,
that's clear enough. [And, this last sentence sounds sensible.]
Thanks,
--
Raul
Reply to: