IP: GNU license controversy

[David Farber <dave@farber.net>]

>X-Sender: dvb@pop.panix.com
>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2
>Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 15:46:49 -0400
>To: dave@farber.net
>From: Dave Burstein <daveb@dslprime.com>
>Subject: GNU license controversy
>
>Dave - Not sure if this is worth posting to the list, but I think some of 
>the comments I've seen come across are misinterpretations.
>
>Dave
>
>I'm not in the middle of the open source debate, but what has been coming 
>across the IP list didn't sound right to me, so I went back to the GNU 
>license itself. It doesn't appear to me to restrict programmers charging 
>for their work, as implied in the discussion. Rather, it seems to prevent 
>making small changes to software, and charging for the work of others.
>
>In particular, it looks to me that if you write a program that extends, 
>say, GNU Emacs, you can sell that program however you like. You just can't 
>bundle Emacs with it (someone else's work, after all), and charge for the 
>entire package. I'm reading the sentence below  that if "sections of that 
>work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered 
>independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its 
>terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate 
>works."
>
>Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but I don't see how that prevents a programmer 
>from appropriately packaging and charge for her work.
>
>Relevant text
>
>"These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable 
>sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be 
>reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then 
>this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you 
>distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same 
>sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the 
>distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose 
>permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to 
>each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
>Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your 
>rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise 
>the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works 
>based on the Program."
>



For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/