[plug] [article] Open Code Market (OCM)

[James Devenish]

In message <20031114095034.GG3126 at erdos.home>
on Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 05:50:34PM +0800, Cameron Patrick wrote:
> No, not /exclusively/ in a non-free manner, because they have already
> licensed their work in a free manner.

A fair price to pay, of course.

In message <20031114095034.GG3126 at erdos.home>
on Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 05:50:34PM +0800, Cameron Patrick wrote:
> In message <20031114063109.GA27406 at mail.guild.uwa.edu.au>
> on Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 02:31:09PM +0800, James Devenish wrote:
> > No you're not: the GPL restricts the licensing of your code (if you
> > wish to distribute your derivative or library-dependent works, that
> > is).
> I just think that saying an unqualified "The GPL restricts the
> licensing of your code" is at best misleading and easily
> interpreted as something which is incorrect.

I did qualify my statement, but maybe the qualification got separated
from the original statement due to the insertion of replies (damn-it,
those side-posters were right all along!).

> | > You're welcome to license your additions to GPL'ed software under some
> | > other licence.
> | 
> | Under *particular* other licences that will all the conditions of the
> | GPL to be imposed.
> 
> No, you can distribute /your/ code under any licence you like.

Okay, I guess is a case-by-case situation (or even grey/gray area). E.g.
do additions form a modified copy or a separate work, etc. Additions to
a C programme, for instance, involve modification of a programme's
source (header files, Makefiles, documentation), so I thought they must
be distributed as derivative works. That means putting your code under
the GPL and being willing to distribute the entire modified programme.
Maybe the workaround is that you distribute only the separable parts.
That allows you to distribute your source under any licence you like,
but no one would be able to compile it as part of the whole. The latter
is undesirable, but I would concede that it would be technically true
that you were allowed to distribute under any licence you liked.

In the case of software that *uses* a GPL library, well, my impression
was that the source of the GPL library would form part of a "whole" and
the "whole" must be distributed under the GPL. So, you couldn't
distribute source or binaries under just any licence you liked.

In the case that you've written a module that is used by a GPL programme
but does not require modification of the GPL programme's source or
binary distributions, ah...maybe that is all dandy. You can distribute
the source as you like (though people would not be allowed to use it
with that GPL programme). However, there is doubt in my mind, because it
sounds like the 'additions' situation that I mentioned above. I.e.
because if your module #included part of the GPL programme, then you are
making a combined/modified/derivative work and you can only distribute
your source and binaries under the terms of the GPL. You could avoid
this by not #including things. You could then distribute under any
license you liked. (But users would not be allowed to compile your code
unless they added the #include, and then compiling and linking in the
presence of the #include would then be incompatible with the GPL.)

> | Agreed (coming back to my point that the GPL sacrifices freedom for
> | openness).
> 
> Fair enough.  I obviously just don't perceive this as being a problem in
> the way that you seem to.

That is the interesting thing.


_______________________________________________
plug mailing list
plug at plug.linux.org.au
http://mail.plug.linux.org.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/plug