In message <[🔎] 20001130121900.A6329@adsl-63-195-123-115.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net>
, B
rian Frederick Kimball writes:
...snip...
>In your example the individual files are being extracted from the source
>*after* the user has already received the source.tar.gz and thus also
>already received the GPL. The source tarball is the Program. One copy
>of the GPL in the source tarball suffices.
>
Here I agree. I even would not be against every .deb including the license
text and then sticking it in one location (not 1000 copies per system!) on
the installed system. That goes a long way towards following the letter and
spirit of the GPL.
>Think of it this way: each "downloadable entity" that meets the above
>definition of "Program" needs to have the GPL inside it (or you need to
>make sure that each person that downloads the file gets a copy of the
>GPL from you).
>
>If its a deb, one GPL suffices. Same with .tar.gzs. If it's a .c in
>an unpacked source tree, that too needs a copy of the GPL if it meets
>the definition of a Program ("contains a notice placed by the copyright
>holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General
>Public License.").
>
Congratulations!
- you just made every CVS archive unusable because every source file that
has a license term in it needs to be checked out with a complete copy of the
GPL.
- you made apt-get <package> unusable unless it too ships the GPL with every
package, or every single package includes it.
- you made every binary program (see 'ls' example) copy from one computer to
the next a violation because the license is not transferred with it.
- you made every email of a code or header under GPL file be mailed with a
license.
...and probably a bunch of other things, but I think you get the point.
>_Yes_ its absurd. But that's not my problem; I didn't write the license.
>
Sorry, but your interpretation IMO is what's absurd. You didn't write it,
but you are _interpreting_ it, and an interpretation is subjective
(depending on who's doing the interpretation) and not objective.
The GPL is not ridiculous, and tries to protect the freedom of the code and
ensure the user knows what's up. If you do 'ls --version' and have a name
of the license or a pointer to it (URL or file) you're ensuring what the GPL
wants to ensure: freedom and knowledge thereof, and the means of finding out
more.
In message <[🔎] 20001130122722.B6329@adsl-63-195-123-115.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net>
, B
rian Frederick Kimball writes:
>> tb@becket.net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
>> We do give them a copy of the GPL. Its up to them to take it.
>
>I still don't think "making available" is the same as "giving".
I need to copy of 'ls' because mine is messed up. I copy it from another
machine, which has the GPL on it. Are you forcing me to take a copy of the
GPL, because if not the owner of the system I'm taking it from is in
violation??!? I know I'm available to take it, and I know where to find it.
Gimme a break. A large one, please. This is the real world where things
need to _work_ and not get picked apart by people who have nothing better to
do.
The GPL gives freedom and wants to ensure people know about it. If it's to
be taken literally to the extent you want it to be, no free software project
would ever exist because they'd be so freaking paranoid about the licensing
violations they'd be afraid to code (or not have time to because they're
busy copying licenses).
Please, think about what you're doing here and consider the implications
before arguing this direction further, and consider the fact that your
interpretation is just that: an interpretation.
Regards,
Nils.
ps. what license is the GPL itself under? :)