1 |
On 27/08/2013 11:08, Joerg Schilling wrote: |
2 |
> Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com> wrote: |
3 |
> |
4 |
>>> Isn't it strange that those people seem to have less problems with closed |
5 |
>>> source than with a license that gives more freedom than the GPL? But |
6 |
>>> you are correct that the problem seem to be humans and not a license text. |
7 |
>> |
8 |
>> You are aware that the GPL was not really intended to be used together |
9 |
>> with other licenses? It was really intended to create an entire |
10 |
>> operating system, all of which was 100% licensed as GPL, all of which |
11 |
>> comprise an original work written from scratch |
12 |
> |
13 |
> But it has been proven that you cannot create a 100% GPL OS. |
14 |
> More than 50% of all Linux distros are under different licenses... |
15 |
> |
16 |
>> Stallman never makes this claim as bluntly as I've said it here, but |
17 |
>> it's the only intelligent reading of his intent as far as I can make |
18 |
>> out. This is why so many arguments arise over the GPL, the wording of |
19 |
>> that license was not really intended to have it co-exist with other |
20 |
>> licenses. |
21 |
> |
22 |
> Stallman does not look at reality. The first GCC version in 1986 has been |
23 |
> published under something I call GPLv0 and this license did not permit a legal |
24 |
> use of the GCC in public. |
25 |
> |
26 |
> The license was later converted to GPLv1 by using proposals I made but |
27 |
> Stallman still only talks about what has been in GPLv0. |
28 |
|
29 |
|
30 |
I didn't bring this up to discuss fine points of licenses. I brought it |
31 |
up for those who might want to understand what the GPL is intended to |
32 |
do; that can only be truly understood by determining what Stallman |
33 |
intended. The GPL is a reflection of Stallman's intent, and can only be |
34 |
truly understood in that light. |
35 |
|
36 |
Whether the legal wording accurately matches his intent is another |
37 |
matter altogether. I personally feel it doesn't, won't and cannot, for |
38 |
reasons of psychology and philosophy, not for reasons of technology or |
39 |
law. What the GPL tries to do and how it does it is quite foreign to |
40 |
most who practice law. Humans don't like foreign concepts. Heck, GPL-2 |
41 |
doesn't even remotely read like something that came off a lawyer's desk. |
42 |
|
43 |
|
44 |
> |
45 |
>>> There is nothing non-void in the GPL that stops you from distributing binaries. |
46 |
>> |
47 |
>> That's a question of packaging and bundling, which is not covered by the |
48 |
>> GPL. But kernel code and kernel modules are not mere bundles, they are |
49 |
>> derivative works by virtue of how tightly they integrate with the |
50 |
>> kernel, and how the code can only ever run unchanged on Linux. |
51 |
> |
52 |
> If a kernel uses ZFS, you have to decide on whether the kernel is a derivative |
53 |
> work of ZFS or whether just a collective work exists. |
54 |
> |
55 |
> _Using_ ZFS definitely does not make ZFS a derivative work. |
56 |
|
57 |
I never said it did. I was concentrating on those parts of ZFS that |
58 |
interact with kernel internals - that might not be been entirely clear |
59 |
|
60 |
You are making a spurious claim by saying "you have to decide on whether |
61 |
the kernel is a derivative work of ZFS or ..." |
62 |
|
63 |
In what possible way could the entire Linux kernel be considered a |
64 |
derivative work of ZFS? That doesn't make any sense. |
65 |
|
66 |
|
67 |
|
68 |
-- |
69 |
Alan McKinnon |
70 |
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com |