Re: Linus about GPL x BSD(long)

On Fri, 19 Jul 2002, Francois Gouget wrote:

> On Fri, 19 Jul 2002, Deven T. Corzine wrote:
> [...]
> > When the "other code" is code that gets linked with GPL code (which is
> > what I was referring to), it doesn't matter if the other code was
> > developed independently for some other purpose -- the GPL still
> > requires that the other code be relicensed under the GPL in order to
> > distribute the combined work, as if the only reason for the other
> > code's existence is to subvert the intent of the GPL.
> 
> If this were true, then there would not be any GPL X application. And it
> would be illegal for Sun to link GNU emacs against Sun's proprietary X
> libraries unless they released these libraries under the GPL.  That's
> preposterous. Your statement is obviously wrong.

Try actually _reading_ the GPL sometime, you might learn something:

     "However, as a special exception, the source code distributed 
     need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either 
     source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, 
     and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, 
     unless that component itself accompanies the executable."

This is a hole big enough to drive a truck through (especially for someone 
like Microsoft who "integrates" as much as possible into the operating 
system), but it was a necessary exception for exactly the reason you state.  
Without this exception, it would have been impossible to distribute any GPL 
binaries for traditional, proprietary UNIX systems.  (Of course, now that 
free alternatives such as Linux are available, will GPLv3 still have this 
exception?  Maybe, maybe not...)

Instead of jumping to conclusions about what's "obviously wrong", why not 
take some time to actually learn about the GPL if you intend to debate it?

> [...]
> > Now, let's look at my original statement again:
> >
> > > > the GPL wants others to give up their freedom to choose a license even
> > > > on other code, NOT just modifications made to GPL code.
> >
> > How can you claim this statement is a lie?
> 
> This very broad statement may possibly be true in very narrow and rare
> situations (and I am not convinced by your codec/media player example).
> And in that it is a lie.

Are you always this stubborn, or are you just constitutionally incapable of 
admitting that you made a mistake?  You misunderstood me, plain and simple.  
Now you're just grasping at straws to try to save face.

It's not my fault that you interpreted my statement more broadly than it 
was intended.  I think it would have been obvious to most people familiar 
with the nature of the GPL that I was referring only to integrating GPL 
code with other code, which must then be licensed under the GPL in order to 
be distributable.  If you couldn't pick this up from the context, I have to 
wonder if you understand how the GPL works at all.

From your name and email address, I presume that you are French.  I suppose 
this would suggest that French is probably your native tongue, not English.  
Unlike French, no authority dictates the meaning of the English language.  
(The Oxford English Dictionary is the most authoritative reference, and it 
reacts to the natural evolution of the language, rather than attempting to 
direct language evolution by fiat.)

You claimed that my statement had "only one meaning" (your overly-broad 
interpretation that included GCC/XFree86 interactions) and therefore you 
claimed I was lying.  It would only have been a lie had I intended for it 
to be interpreted the way you did.  You misinterpreted my meaning, which 
negates your "proof" of lying, while proving that your assumption of "only 
one meaning" was also wrong.  English is like that; it's a very slippery 
language, often with many meanings.  Why do you think legalese is verbose?

Now, the codec/media player example was a very narrow and specific example, 
because I thought a concrete example would serve better than a generic 
description to make my point.  However, that's just an example; while the 
statement isn't as broad as your interpretation, it is much broader than 
that particular example.

It's real convenient that you're "not convinced" by the concrete example of 
a codec and media player, even though I made it as clear-cut as possible.  
Strange that you couldn't offer a coherent objection to the specifics of 
the example, yet you still find it unconvincing.  Well, convinced or not, 
your lack of belief does not make my statement a lie; I had no intent to 
deceive you or anyone else with that statement.

Moreover, the statement was correct, whether or not you are having some 
sort of difficulty understanding plain English.  The GPL wants others to 
give up their freedom to choose a license -- if you're going to use any GPL 
code, you MUST license all of the code under the GPL.  "All of the code" 
means the modified GPL code and any OTHER code used with it.  You seem to 
be arguing that this class of "other code" simply does not exist, and that 
by virtue of being used with GPL code, it becomes "modified GPL code".

The codec/media player example was meant as a counterexample to disprove 
that argument.  If the codec already exists independently of the GPL, it 
cannot be said to be a derived work of GPL code, and therefore cannot be in 
the category of "modified GPL code".  If the codec is later integrated with 
the GPL code, WITHOUT modifying the codec, it's unreasonable to suddenly 
claim that the unmodified code has somehow suddenly become derivative of 
the GPL code without even changing.  That's "obviously wrong" -- it is 
absolutely identical to the GPL-free code, which means that they're the 
same work,  The same work can't be both derivative and independent; if it 
was independent before, it must still be independent since it's unchanged.

Therefore, in this example, the codec clearly falls into the category of 
"other code" that I was referring to.  The GPL leverages the fact that a 
compiled binary incorporating both works is a derived work of each, and 
demands that the otherwise-independent code (the codec) be relicensed under 
the GPL in order to have permission to distribute the modified GPL work 
that the combined binary represents.  Note that the GPL doesn't try to 
force the license on undistributed code, because it CANNOT.  The author is 
left between a rock and a hard place: relicense the other code under the 
GPL, or you can't distribute the combined work at all.

Again, the statement I made is true, yet you persist in calling me a liar.

Are you usually so antisocial?

Deven