> If the GPL gives me permission to modify a file, then I can remove the BSD license from that file.
Gee whiz. How on earth did this get moderated +4 Insightful? Where does the GPL grant anyone except the FSF (via new GPL versions) permission to modify the license of a file? Just because the BSD and GPL licenses are included in files doesn't mean you can edit them in code you download.
It's easy for Steve to complain about other companies using DRM to protect their intellectual property. If Steve feels so strongly that DRM is a problem he should set an example by removing the DRM that prevents MacOS X from running on non-Apple hardware.
There was a discussion once about flex and bison on slashdot. The FSF had to include specific provisions on some of the source files. I got into a petty battle with Bruce Perens before I relized he was right.
Essentially when you run the processors it fills out templates, generates code etc. The templates and such are under GPL so the resulting code would also have to be under GPL because they are derived from the GPL source, thus the exception on some of the source files that allows certain portions of the code _when_copied_ into the output to nolonger be covered by the GPL.
So if you produce a GPL program that produces source, my guess is that portions of that source are contained in the original code. The evil derived code producer would have to rewrite those portions of the program and would have to accept not distributing the final code (or else his changes would become GPL).
I think your concern is that your preprocessor generates a considerable amount of code and perhaps the modifications necessary would be small. I would suspect that in the end it is performing template.
In the end Bruce Perens just advised someone to GPL the code and add a provision saying that all output from the code is also under the GPL (or not under the GPL, I forget which and I couldn't find it in Slash).
I don't understand the reasoning. How is a web site different from any other network protocol say SMTP or POP or even TCP?
Maybe what you are thinking is that when someone connects to your SMTP port, they are causing code to be executed on your machine, therefore they must have downloaded the sendmail executable and you have to supply them with the source code?
To me that sounds silly. Sendmail is not GPL'd but suppose it were and suppose I monkeyed around with it on my machine and combined it with some non-GPL or even proprietary code (which I can do privately). Then I have no right to distribute the final executable because I may not have the right to distribute the proprietary portions of the code.
The right to make private versions of a program and not distribute them is what give software value. This is spelled out very well in the GNU Manifesto. This is also one of the reasons why the FSF criticizes the Plan9 licence. The Plan9 licence requires that all modifications be made public.
In my opinion this whole discussion is a little silly. Way back, there was a discussion about the output of flex and bison (preprocessors that generate C code). This involves the program actually copying parts of itself into the output (sort of). In the FSF code these portions of the code are given a special exception nulling the GPL on those specific portions of the code if written as output.
Slashdot Mirror
> If the GPL gives me permission to modify a file, then I can remove the BSD license from that file.
Gee whiz. How on earth did this get moderated +4 Insightful? Where does the GPL grant anyone except the FSF (via new GPL versions) permission to modify the license of a file? Just because the BSD and GPL licenses are included in files doesn't mean you can edit them in code you download.
It's easy for Steve to complain about other companies using DRM to protect their intellectual property. If Steve feels so strongly that DRM is a problem he should set an example by removing the DRM that prevents MacOS X from running on non-Apple hardware.
Agreed. But it goes even further $0.50 is worth obliterating the scratched rental disk annoyance.
There was a discussion once about flex and bison on slashdot. The FSF had to include specific provisions on some of the source files. I got into a petty battle with Bruce Perens before I relized he was right.
Essentially when you run the processors it fills out templates, generates code etc. The templates and such are under GPL so the resulting code would also have to be under GPL because they are derived from the GPL source, thus the exception on some of the source files that allows certain portions of the code _when_copied_ into the output to nolonger be covered by the GPL.
So if you produce a GPL program that produces source, my guess is that portions of that source are contained in the original code. The evil derived code producer would have to rewrite those portions of the program and would have to accept not distributing the final code (or else his changes would become GPL).
I think your concern is that your preprocessor generates a considerable amount of code and perhaps the modifications necessary would be small. I would suspect that in the end it is performing template.
In the end Bruce Perens just advised someone to GPL the code and add a provision saying that all output from the code is also under the GPL (or not under the GPL, I forget which and I couldn't find it in Slash).
I don't understand the reasoning. How is a web site different from any other network protocol say SMTP or POP or even TCP?
Maybe what you are thinking is that when someone connects to your SMTP port, they are causing code to be executed on your machine, therefore they must have downloaded the sendmail executable and you have to supply them with the source code?
To me that sounds silly. Sendmail is not GPL'd but suppose it were and suppose I monkeyed around with it on my machine and combined it with some non-GPL or even proprietary code (which I can do privately). Then I have no right to distribute the final executable because I may not have the right to distribute the proprietary portions of the code.
The right to make private versions of a program and not distribute them is what give software value. This is spelled out very well in the GNU Manifesto. This is also one of the reasons why the FSF criticizes the Plan9 licence. The Plan9 licence requires that all modifications be made public.
In my opinion this whole discussion is a little silly. Way back, there was a discussion about the output of flex and bison (preprocessors that generate C code). This involves the program actually copying parts of itself into the output (sort of). In the FSF code these portions of the code are given a special exception nulling the GPL on those specific portions of the code if written as output.
So is everybody saying that the GPL cannot apply to a perl code because perl codes are not distributed as binaries? Did I miss something?
What about other interpreted languages? So basically everyone here is saying that software written in interpreted languages is not covered by GPL?
Consider the "problems" with the Plan9 license. The FSF criticizes this licence _because_ it does not allow private modifications.
Read the manifesto. Private modifications are one of the things that make software valuable.
But NeXT did fight hard initially to keep the Objective-C extensions to GCC
Yes it is. It is "Mac OS Ten" not "MacOS echs".