Re: GNU licenses

[mike4ty4]

mike4ty4@yahoo.com wrote:
> Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> > But GPL software due to the nature of the license requires the code
> >    be released and that's what I mean by "open-source".
> >
> > Again, please stop confusing the Free Software movement with the Open
> > Source movement.  They are two different movements, with two different
> > goals; and we do not wish to be confused with them.
> >
>
> Like I tried to explain, I mean something different by "open-source"
> than
> you do, just like I do with "automatic" and "force" and I tried to
> define it:
> "open source" in my mind means having the source code available,
> as opposed to "closed source" meaning the source code is withheld.
>
> > The GNU GPL does not require you to release anything. It requires you
> > that if you distribute or modify code licensed under the GNU GPL, then
> > you must abide by that license.  It also requires that if you
> > distribute works based on GNU GPL licensed code, then those people who
> > recive copies must recive the same rights as you have to run, study,
> > distribute and modify the program.
> >
>
> Oh, so one distributes the _combined work_ as GPL right?
>
> >    > Again, you do not give up any right to the original code, you are
> >    > still the copyright holder of it.  If you use someone elses code,
> >    > then you must abide by that liecnse; in this case the GNU GPL.
> >
> >    That's what I mean! If I want to use the other person's code I have
> >    to agree to the license, which requires me to give up some rights,
> >    to "pay" so to speak, or not use it at all.
> >
> > You do not give up any rights, you are still the copyright holder.
> > You can license your code in whatever way you wish.  But it is no
> > longer just your code if you incoperate someone else copyrighted
> > works.
> >
>
> Oh, it's part of the _combined work_ right, which is treated as a
> distinct work. The original code is still mine. I didn't give up any
> rights to it, I just distributed a particular program based on it under
> a particular license.
>
> Thanks.
>
> > Again, this has been explained many times to you.
>
> Well I guess I didn't quite understand it, and now I do. And if it
> was deep in all those posts where people are responding to
> each other here (other than me), I would never have seen it
> because there's jsut too many of them for me to want to
> sit through it and some contained legalese and discussions I
> could _not_ follow without devoting more time than I wanted
> to. I only looked at those posts in direct response to mine or
> at most 1 level below them, and I couldn't quite grasp what
> was going on.
>
> Maybe GNU isn't as bad as I thought. Thanks for the
> answers.

Well there's been no response so I guess I'm right on all my
conclusions now. Thanks for the answers.