Begin forwarded message:
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 13:37:20 +0100 From: "Kiran Raosaheb Patil" krp@biocentrum.dtu.dk To: office@fsfeurope.org Subject: Query about GNU-GPL
Dear FSF-Europe team,
I have developed some C++ codes for my study which I wish to make available "freely" to other resarch communities.
But since my program is linked to GPL licensed libraries and non-free libraries as well, I can not distibute it under GPL. Is there any way that I can distribute only the GPL covered libaries (/parts of libarries used by program) under GPL and rest under different license? It is not possible to make the program work without non-free libaries, unles I invest lot of time for implementing it by myself, which is not feasible for me.
Any suggestions are welcome. If this is not possible, UNFORTUNATELY I many need to turn to a completely non-free system to keep my work available for reserachers acros the world.
Sincerely,
Kiran R. Patil PhD Student Center for Microbial Biotechnology, Biocentrum-DTU, Technical University of Denmark Phone: +45 45252703 Fax: +45 45884148
But since my program is linked to GPL licensed libraries and non-free libraries as well, I can not distibute it under GPL.
You can license you work on another free software license like the Lesser GPL.
There might be a probobly with mixing those GPL licensed libraries with non-free libraries though. I would suggest that you reimplement the non-free libraries, non-free software is not a acceptable solution.
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Karsten Gerloff wrote:
Begin forwarded message:
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 13:37:20 +0100 From: "Kiran Raosaheb Patil" krp@biocentrum.dtu.dk To: office@fsfeurope.org Subject: Query about GNU-GPL
[...]
Is there any way that I can distribute only the GPL covered libaries (/parts of libarries used by program) under GPL and rest under different license?
You aren't obligated to distribute the libraries. If the free ones are free in the sense of the GNU GPL, then anyone who wants to use your package will be able to get them somewhere. You may, of course, decide to distribute them as a convenience.
Including code from non-free libraries will make your package non-free.
It is not possible to make the program work without non-free libaries, unles I invest lot of time for implementing it by myself, which is not feasible for me.
Are you certain that there no free libraries that would serve the purpose? Would the owners of the non-free libraries consider changing their license to a free one? Could you formulate your code in such a way that it could be used by someone who'd be interested in implementing the functionality you need from the non-free libraries?
Laurence Finston http://www.gnu.org/software/3dldf/LDF.html
Including code from non-free libraries will make your package non-free.
Not true. The result would be illegal, not non-free. For it to be legal the whole work has to be licensed under the GNU GPL.
Once can add a special execption to the GPLed library so one allows for non-free libraries to use it, see the GPL FAQ "How can I allow linking of proprietary modules with my GPL-covered library under a controlled interface only?"
The GPL FAQ has more answer releated to this.
On 22 Mar 2005 at 19:40, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
Including code from non-free libraries will make your package non-free.
Not true. The result would be illegal, not non-free. For it to be legal the whole work has to be licensed under the GNU GPL.
And what you've just said is completely untrue - he does not need to license the whole (derived) work under the GPL at all, only under a GPL compatible license. Any that makes the source available with no other restrictions is usually compatible.
Once can add a special execption to the GPLed library so one allows for non-free libraries to use it, see the GPL FAQ "How can I allow linking of proprietary modules with my GPL-covered library under a controlled interface only?"
The GPL FAQ has more answer releated to this.
Despite what the GPL FAQ may say, if the proprietary libraries are contained inside self-standing binaries (eg; DLL's) then it is unlikely there is GPL contamination. While this issue has not been proved in court, it is very hard to argue a difference between loading an executable and loading a DLL in technical terms in modern systems and I personally don't see the difference at all. What's far more important IMHO is whether the author's wishes have been contravened so the original asker of the question should work from that basis.
Cheers, Niall
Including code from non-free libraries will make your package non-free.
Not true. The result would be illegal, not non-free. For it to be legal the whole work has to be licensed under the GNU GPL.
And what you've just said is completely untrue
,----[ The GNU General Public License - Section 2 ] | b. You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that | in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program | or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge | to all third parties under the terms of this License. `----
Despite what the GPL FAQ may say,
Frankly, I trust the GPL FAQ--which is based on answers from lawyers--more then I trust what your opinion on the matter is.
On 23 Mar 2005 at 9:16, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
Including code from non-free libraries will make your package non-free. > > Not true. The result would be illegal, not
non-free. For it to > be legal the whole work has to be licensed under the GNU GPL.
And what you've just said is completely untrue
,----[ The GNU General Public License - Section 2 ] | b. You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that | in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program | or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge | to all third parties under the terms of this License. `----
There is a HUGE difference between "under the terms of this License" and "under this License". The former means what I said, the latter what you said.
Despite what the GPL FAQ may say,Frankly, I trust the GPL FAQ--which is based on answers from lawyers--more then I trust what your opinion on the matter is.
The GPL FAQ is not based on answers from lawyers, rather it is written by GPL zealots like yourself and then it is reviewed by lawyers to see if their interpretation has some legal basis, which it does.
It certainly does not mean it would survive a judicial test. There are others on this list far more schooled than I in this area so I won't comment further, but do feel free to go review the list archive for past discussions on this matter.
Cheers, Niall
Despite what the GPL FAQ may say,Frankly, I trust the GPL FAQ--which is based on answers from lawyers--more then I trust what your opinion on the matter is.
The GPL FAQ is not based on answers from lawyers, rather it is written by GPL zealots like yourself and then it is reviewed by lawyers to see if their interpretation has some legal basis, which it does.
I will ignore the personal attacks this time; but I suggest that you stop that kind of crap on a list where people who are interested in protecting your freedom are subscribed.
The GPL FAQ is infact based on answers from lawyers (Molgen I belive), and people who have better knowledge about the GPL then you at the FSF.
On 23 Mar 2005 at 11:05, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
Despite what the GPL FAQ may say,Frankly, I trust the GPL FAQ--which is based on answers from >
lawyers--more then I trust what your opinion on the matter is.
The GPL FAQ is not based on answers from lawyers, rather it is written by GPL zealots like yourself and then it is reviewed by lawyers to see if their interpretation has some legal basis, which it does.
I will ignore the personal attacks this time; but I suggest that you stop that kind of crap on a list where people who are interested in protecting your freedom are subscribed.
I as many other free software believers would argue that the GPL is a necessary evil (ask any BSD believer). You know there is more than one kind of free software than GPL and it doesn't help with people ramming the GPL without qualification down the throat of anyone who asks.
The GPL FAQ is infact based on answers from lawyers (Molgen I belive), and people who have better knowledge about the GPL then you at the FSF.
Lawyers will write what you ask them if you pay them so long as the view you ask for can be supported by a particular interpretation of the law. Just as equally, I could pay often the exact same lawyer to write my interpretation of the law.
Lawyers don't determine the interpretation of the law, courts do. So go on believing that the GPL FAQ is the one true interpretation of the law if you like, though if you read it closely you will find it puts provisos that its interpretation of the shared library issue is not the only one.
Cheers, Niall
I as many other free software believers would argue that the GPL is a necessary evil (ask any BSD believer). You know there is more than one kind of free software than GPL and it doesn't help with people ramming the GPL without qualification down the throat of anyone who asks.
This doesn't excuse you to resort to personal attacks.
At Wed, 23 Mar 2005 13:11:40 -0000, Niall Douglas wrote:
On 23 Mar 2005 at 11:05, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
The GPL FAQ is not based on answers from lawyers, rather it is written by GPL zealots like yourself and then it is reviewed by lawyers to see if their interpretation has some legal basis, which it does.
I will ignore the personal attacks this time; but I suggest that you stop that kind of crap on a list where people who are interested in protecting your freedom are subscribed.
I as many other free software believers would argue that the GPL is a necessary evil (ask any BSD believer). You know there is more than one kind of free software than GPL and it doesn't help with people ramming the GPL without qualification down the throat of anyone who asks.
Talking about "GPL zealots" doesn't help anything either.
The GPL FAQ is infact based on answers from lawyers (Molgen I belive), and people who have better knowledge about the GPL then you at the FSF.
Lawyers will write what you ask them if you pay them so long as the view you ask for can be supported by a particular interpretation of the law. Just as equally, I could pay often the exact same lawyer to write my interpretation of the law.
The only thing is that the FSF doesn't pay lawyers. Eben Moglen works pro bono for the FSF. So please stop saying ridiculous things such as the FSF paying lawyers to give opinions which don't stand in court.
Jeroen Dekkers
On 23 Mar 2005 at 20:21, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
I as many other free software believers would argue that the GPL is a necessary evil (ask any BSD believer). You know there is more than one kind of free software than GPL and it doesn't help with people ramming the GPL without qualification down the throat of anyone who asks.
Talking about "GPL zealots" doesn't help anything either.
Why does the term keep coming up again and again then? People get so fixated on there being this one single truth which just has to be true, because if it isn't then their nice comfortable world suddenly gets insecure.
People constantly forget that views on how software should be exchanged between people are belief systems, and as those systems harden they become religious in overtone. As usual, most people on this list will think I am spouting crap, but I think it's very easy to stop seeing the wood from the trees. Is the GPL or any form of software licensing more important than freeing software? No it isn't. What we all actually want, and need, is replacement of the legal support for computer software with something a lot better than a derivative of printing-press book law.
The GPL FAQ is infact based on answers from lawyers (Molgen I belive), and people who have better knowledge about the GPL then you at the FSF.
Lawyers will write what you ask them if you pay them so long as the view you ask for can be supported by a particular interpretation of the law. Just as equally, I could pay often the exact same lawyer to write my interpretation of the law.
The only thing is that the FSF doesn't pay lawyers. Eben Moglen works pro bono for the FSF. So please stop saying ridiculous things such as the FSF paying lawyers to give opinions which don't stand in court.
Paying need not be monetary, it's why lawyers do pro bono work. If I were extremely cynical, I would say that he is seeding avenues of future work though from what I have read of him, he is a conscientious man who probably genuinely believes his opinion is right. Nevertheless, it doesn't change my point - lawyers don't set the interpretation of law, courts do - so Moglen's opinion while possible is by no means as sacrosant as GPL believers would like it to be.
There's a part of me who would like to see the GPL fully tested in court with the FSF up against some very good corporate lawyers. Almost certainly the current legal position of the GPL would be weakened and a distributed sigh of disbelief would emanate from the GPL believers. The great and true GPL FAQ would need substantial parts rewording and perhaps Microsoft among others would start using unmodified GPLed DLL's in their products with no worry about "GPL contamination" as they would put it.
Of course, the majority of me recognises that that would be a bad idea overall as most of the power of the GPL comes from its perceived risk to proprietary code rather than its actual, but it would sure be nice to see some of that zealotry wiped off some people's faces.
Cheers, Niall
Niall wrote:
Jeroen Dekkers wrote: [...]
Talking about "GPL zealots" doesn't help anything either.
Why does the term keep coming up again and again then? [...]
It's because people like you keep introducing it.
People constantly forget that views on how software should be exchanged between people are belief systems, and as those systems harden they become religious in overtone.
I think you'll find they're decisions based on prior belief systems. Apart from the mythical Saint iGNUcious, I'm not sure software exchange is the core of anyone's belief system. It's not helpful to keep "religicising" discussions.
As usual, most people on this list will think I am spouting crap, but I think it's very easy to stop seeing the wood from the trees. [...]
We are all just poor misguided souls who should look to the One True Leader to show us the One True Path! Thanks for pointing it out! This list is blind, but you too can see, if you choose! Just send me GBP 500 in unmarked used tenners to me at the AFFS address and I will share with you the secret!
[...] but it would sure be nice to see some of that zealotry wiped off some people's faces.
Yes, yours included. ;-)
At Thu, 24 Mar 2005 12:20:11 -0000, Niall Douglas wrote:
There's a part of me who would like to see the GPL fully tested in court with the FSF up against some very good corporate lawyers.
The GPL is already tested in court. See http://www.netfilter.org/news/2004-04-15-sitecom-gpl.html
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050225223848129
Jeroen Dekkers
On 25 Mar 2005 at 10:53, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
At Thu, 24 Mar 2005 12:20:11 -0000, Niall Douglas wrote:
There's a part of me who would like to see the GPL fully tested in court with the FSF up against some very good corporate lawyers.
I said FULLY tested, in other words not a clear open & shut case of blatent license violation.
The GPL is already tested in court. See http://www.netfilter.org/news/2004-04-15-sitecom-gpl.html
This is the netfilters case, a famous and very blatent stealing of code.
I hadn't heard of this one before, but it's also a case of stealing of code.
In either, it was not so much the GPL itself which was being tested in court but rather general copyright law in that you can't just go take someone else's work and make it your own without permission. The fact it was the GPL as the license wasn't particularly important than any other license.
When I say fully tested, I mean for example some large company bundling GPL software with their proprietary system. Right now, companies such as MS won't even let a single GPL binary anywhere near their ISO's because of the legal uncertainty which surrounds the GPL - almost certainly, an aggregate of binaries doesn't invoke source disclosure but MS's lawyers will have advised them better safe than sorry. And that's a shame, because it's a pain in the ass for millions all over the world to have to go install various numerous addons to new installations of Windows which would be much handier if they came on the install CD (after all, we all don't have broadband internet yet!)
Cheers, Niall
At Mon, 28 Mar 2005 18:04:38 +0100, Niall Douglas wrote:
When I say fully tested, I mean for example some large company bundling GPL software with their proprietary system. Right now, companies such as MS won't even let a single GPL binary anywhere near their ISO's because of the legal uncertainty which surrounds the GPL - almost certainly, an aggregate of binaries doesn't invoke source disclosure but MS's lawyers will have advised them better safe than sorry.
The GPL is pretty clear about that. There is no uncertainty.
And that's a shame, because it's a pain in the ass for millions all over the world to have to go install various numerous addons to new installations of Windows which would be much handier if they came on the install CD (after all, we all don't have broadband internet yet!)
The biggest pain in the ass is windows itself. That has nothing to do with the GPL.
Jeroen Dekkers
On 28 Mar 2005 at 20:51, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
Right now, companies such as MS won't even let a single GPL binary anywhere near their ISO's because of the legal uncertainty which surrounds the GPL - almost certainly, an aggregate of binaries doesn't invoke source disclosure but MS's lawyers will have advised them better safe than sorry.
The GPL is pretty clear about that. There is no uncertainty.
Well I'd agree. But without that part of the license being tested in court, it has no precedent. Hence, just to be on the safe side in case a court ruled something different, most lawyers advise complete abstention. For example, last time I heard Apple won't bundle anything GPL with MacOS X which definitely would really benefit from it. That just made me think of GCC which is GPL? Hmm, is that an optional/downloadable component or does it come on the install disc?
And that's a shame, because it's a pain in the ass for millions all over the world to have to go install various numerous addons to new installations of Windows which would be much handier if they came on the install CD (after all, we all don't have broadband internet yet!)
The biggest pain in the ass is windows itself. That has nothing to do with the GPL.
Windows has its advantages and disadvantages. People forget that the world before Windows was worse than now - software was even less reliable and even more costly in most instances. I'm no MS supporter, but let's be realistic on the good Windows has done for the world.
Cheers, Niall
The biggest pain in the ass is windows itself. That has nothing to do with the GPL.
Windows has its advantages and disadvantages. People forget that the world before Windows was worse than now - software was even less reliable and even more costly in most instances.
You have a very skewed view of history, software has been quite reliable since before Windows, if anything Windows started the idea that software _doesn't_ have to be reliable.
I'm no MS supporter, but let's be realistic on the good Windows has done for the world.
I fail to see what good it has done, Windows tries to control what the user can or cannot do, just that shows that it has done nothing good for the world, only made it worse.
On 29 Mar 2005 at 22:50, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
The biggest pain in the ass is windows itself. That has nothing >
to do with the GPL.
Windows has its advantages and disadvantages. People forget that the world before Windows was worse than now - software was even less reliable and even more costly in most instances.
You have a very skewed view of history, software has been quite reliable since before Windows, if anything Windows started the idea that software _doesn't_ have to be reliable.
What are you on? Go back, look at why Linux was started. Go see why PC's only penetrated the home market when Windows was made available. Windows enabled a common development platform people could rely on - and while it had its issues, it was dependable enough for an explosion of available software unlike any platform beforehand, including the Unices.
I'm no MS supporter, but let's be realistic on the good Windows has done for the world.
I fail to see what good it has done, Windows tries to control what the user can or cannot do, just that shows that it has done nothing good for the world, only made it worse.
Windows gave and gives far more freedom than most operating system providers did before it. The only comparable would be the home computer systems like the Amiga, Sinclair and Acorns - contrast against Sun at that time.
GPL believers get so worked up about the evils of Microsoft - ah bollocks, I'm too tired to bother anymore. Look you just go on believing MS are the devil incarnate, it's pointless to discuss this any more :(
Cheers, Niall
I don't know if this is a troll or not since it contains so many factual errors that it is silly, but here is the response.
You have a very skewed view of history, software has been quite reliable since before Windows, if anything Windows started the idea that software _doesn't_ have to be reliable.
What are you on? Go back, look at why Linux was started.
Once again, your view on history is skewed, and your logic is bogus. Linux isn't a operating system, so comparing it to Windows is not doable, then you have the smallish problem that Linux was started as a private hack, and only after a while did it start to use components from the GNU project to provide a complete system, GNU/Linux.
I suggest that you take a look at why the GNU project was started instead; which has a history that is far longer then Linux and Windows; it dates back to the 1960s! Then you might wish to stop equating "computer history" with just microcomputers.
Windows gave and gives far more freedom than most operating system providers did before it.
Plain and utter lie. ITS provided complete source code and was free AFAIK, that system is from the 1960's, then you had the Lisp machines (LMI atleast, Symbolics made the system non-free if I remeber correctly) which provided complete source code to the whole system and was also free AFAIK, and that is from the 1970 to 1980s, then you have GNU and the BSDs.
The only comparable would be the home computer systems like the Amiga, Sinclair and Acorns - contrast against Sun at that time.
Once again, stop comparing computer history against microcomputers, they make up a really small part of computer history. But if you wish to still compare them, then you should look at say what the Apple II provided in the manual, complete source code for all ROM code, and I think the license permited you to change and distribute the changes of it. It is Microsoft who started the whole trend of making things non-free in the microcomputer world, outside of that world it was quite common, and before it it was also quite common.
So please, go and learn your history before you start bitching with me.
GPL believers get so worked up about the evils of Microsoft
Can you stop this idiotic name calling?
Please don't spread the confusion that code is a physical entity, you cannot "steal" code, it is impossible. What you speak of are copyright violations, not theft.
On 28 Mar 2005 at 20:52, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
Please don't spread the confusion that code is a physical entity, you cannot "steal" code, it is impossible. What you speak of are copyright violations, not theft.
I take the view that if person A takes a copy of something B has without B's permission where B loses out as a result, that is stealing.
And yes you can steal code. If I make some program which makes all computers go five times faster and someone else takes that without my permission and makes billions from it, that is in my mind and most people's minds stealing.
Just because software, like most computer-representable stuff like music and movies, is somewhat different to physical goods doesn't mean you can't steal them. It still requires very significant amounts of resources to develop software, music and movies and not returning that investment is theft. In mine and most people's opinion, authors should be rewarded for creative works.
It's just that I disagree with the current system of remuneration/protectionism, not that authors shouldn't be paid for their work. I do not think that most software should be free of cost in the slightest - in fact, one of my major problems with the GPL is that code under it is hard to commercialise.
Cheers, Niall
I take the view that if person A takes a copy of something B has without B's permission where B loses out as a result, that is stealing.
B didn't loose his copy of the code, hence no form of stealing occured. This is a example of copyright violation, not theft. Theft is when you loose the item that was stolen, you cannot loose your code by making a illegal copy of it.
And yes you can steal code.
No you cannot, just like you cannot steal ideas or other immaterial things.
If I make some program which makes all computers go five times faster and someone else takes that without my permission and makes billions from it, that is in my mind and most people's minds stealing.
No, in most peoples mind that is a copyright violation, you didn't loose your program that makes a computer go five times faster. Theft is when you loose something, here you didn't loose your copy of the program. Compare this with me taking your bike, you wouldn't be able to use your bike anymore.
The whole idea of "stealing code" stems from companies who wish to equate copying software with the immoral and unethical behaviour of say stealing someones car or shoes. In reality, there is nothing unethical with copying code illegally--law does not state what is unethical or unethical.
On 29 Mar 2005 at 22:28, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
I take the view that if person A takes a copy of something B has without B's permission where B loses out as a result, that is stealing.
B didn't loose his copy of the code, hence no form of stealing occured. This is a example of copyright violation, not theft. Theft is when you loose the item that was stolen, you cannot loose your code by making a illegal copy of it.
No, theft is when you lose what was due to you by right. There is a very simple formula for determining whether a moral crime has been committed - was there a victim? If there was, it was a moral crime.
If I make some program which makes all computers go five times faster and someone else takes that without my permission and makes billions from it, that is in my mind and most people's minds stealing.
No, in most peoples mind that is a copyright violation, you didn't loose your program that makes a computer go five times faster. Theft is when you loose something, here you didn't loose your copy of the program. Compare this with me taking your bike, you wouldn't be able to use your bike anymore.
The whole idea of "stealing code" stems from companies who wish to equate copying software with the immoral and unethical behaviour of say stealing someones car or shoes. In reality, there is nothing unethical with copying code illegally--law does not state what is unethical or unethical.
I don't know whether to bother arguing with you, as it's probably pointless.
I agree that intangibles are not the same as real world items in that they have a near zero production cost. Therefore they should not be treated the same. However, under capitalism - which is the economic system we currently live under - people must be rewarded for taking risk and if someone takes a copy of my risky innovative work without recompensing me, then I am a victim and a crime has been done against me. You can't surely disagree with this as it's also the basis of the GPL - everyone donates their work if others do the same.
Now the current system for recompensing people for taking risk/innovating sucks big time, and is unsustainable in the long run. However my friend, like it or not the fact is that people still need an incentive to take risk and the GPL is a very poor incentive - great at cloning other people's innovations, lousy at incentivising step-change innovation in itself. Therefore, if the Microsoft's of this world stopped innovating, ALL innovation in software would cease if left up to free software alone. You will of course disagree with this, go read my past posts to this mailing list first.
Under a better system, everyone who takes risks/innovates gets reward. The GPL can only really be applied to things like software, applying it to other intangibles like music and movies just doesn't work. So, any future improved legal support for intangibles in general will probably cover software too so that any small player able to outinnovate the big players gets their cash as it should be, and right now is next to impossible especially with software patents :(
Cheers, Niall
Niall wrote:
No, theft is when you lose what was due to you by right. [...]
I was very disappointed that you religicised the discussions here with talk of "zealotry" and "believers". Now you are appealing to strange dictionary definitions too. Stop it.
Most people (and the dictionaries on my bookshelf) regard theft as obtaining something with the intent to deprive the previous holder of it. If you obtain a copy of a literary work, the previous holder still holds the copyright. It is still a crime, "moral" or not.
I don't know whether to argue with you about the other aspects. This is probably not the best forum. I do not think that we "live under" a pure capitalist system and I am quite glad for that. It is not a silver bullet. Then again, we seem to agree on some of the problems, despite differences over reasons or solutions.
Please, if you continue, can you keep it on-topic and polite? There is no need to use religious language or extreme politics.
On 30 Mar 2005 at 22:34, MJ Ray wrote:
Niall wrote:
No, theft is when you lose what was due to you by right. [...]
I was very disappointed that you religicised the discussions here with talk of "zealotry" and "believers". Now you are appealing to strange dictionary definitions too. Stop it.
You yourself have watched my transition from a GPL believer into a non-believer - indeed, you and I had conversations about my then new realisations of what the GPL must mean in the long run. We agreed to disagree, but I have continued to evolve my understanding along those initial lines. I now realise that most people who believe wholeheartedly in the GPL are either (i) misguided, because they haven't thought it through to where it must lead (ie; because it's "cool", the "in thing" etc) or (ii) they have a broken worldview, where somehow the GPL is going to save software.
Now the former is just fashion mostly, but the latter definitely smacks of the faith, illogicality and blinding oneself to uncomfortable realities which only a religious take can create - hence I say so. And okay, it's not popular I say these things here on a list like this - and I wouldn't on a Debian list for example. But this is a free software list, not "the one true free software" list - and my view of software freedom I think everyone here can agree with, it's more long-term & requiring of structural change than some futile fight within stupid and unsustainable laws.
Now if you guys don't like diversity of opinion, then I'll leave. But hey - I mostly keep my mouth shut until someone overannoys me with their unfounded zeal when I feel obliged to say something. You can't claim I'm not being consistent - I continue, despite being very alone here, to advocate my interpretation of things.
Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong. At least I have my own opinion for my own reasons which I take time to try and explain (though obviously not very clearly, as I haven't convinced anyone yet - but maybe I will someday), and that has to be worth something.
I don't know whether to argue with you about the other aspects. This is probably not the best forum. I do not think that we "live under" a pure capitalist system and I am quite glad for that. It is not a silver bullet. Then again, we seem to agree on some of the problems, despite differences over reasons or solutions.
Please, if you continue, can you keep it on-topic and polite? There is no need to use religious language or extreme politics.
Well I don't have time for protracted discussions reiterating what I've already said in the past, so I'll keep the replies to a minimum and try to stick to free software and how I think the GPL negatively impacts that. I hope that's okay with everyone.
Cheers, Niall
Now if you guys don't like diversity of opinion, then I'll leave.
We don't like your lies and name calling, and hostile tone.
You also have a fundamentally wrong understanding about the GPL, it has no intention of "freeing software", it is about those who use the software, the users, that the GPL frees and protects.
On 1 Apr 2005 at 11:29, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
Now if you guys don't like diversity of opinion, then I'll leave.
We don't like your lies and name calling, and hostile tone.
You also have a fundamentally wrong understanding about the GPL, it has no intention of "freeing software", it is about those who use the software, the users, that the GPL frees and protects.
Alfred replied to a private email from me continuing the offtopic elements of this discussion to say that I was being too hostile for him to reply. I therefore assume he is trolling and I will not continue this thread on a public forum with him.
Shame, as judging from the last post of his I clearly rattled him. Ah well, c'est la vie! If anyone wants more on my views on the more popular free software licenses, I have an outdated but still useful page at http://www.nedprod.com/programs/definition.html. Y'all be happy!
Cheers, Niall
I asked you on several occasions to stop the name calling, "Stallman and his worshipers" is name calling. If you wish to have a discussion with me, then stop that kind of childish attitude since I will not have a discussion with someone who is incapable of keeping a polite or neutral tone in their messages, your messages were full of hostility; and I'll bet that others will agree with me.
Niall wrote:
Now if you guys don't like diversity of opinion, then I'll leave. But hey - I mostly keep my mouth shut until someone overannoys me with their unfounded zeal when I feel obliged to say something. You can't claim I'm not being consistent - I continue, despite being very alone here, to advocate my interpretation of things.
It depends if your "diversity of opinion" includes accusing others of being religious nuts or similar. If you hold back from that, then go for it, keep on posting. But, if you can't put your arguments in less divisive language, I'd suggest you leave the list.
No, theft is when you lose what was due to you by right.
And you didn't loose the source code, hence no theft. What part of this do you not grasp?
There is a very simple formula for determining whether a moral crime has been committed - was there a victim? If there was, it was a moral crime.
And this isn't the "formula" that is used in either law or in common sense.
I don't know whether to bother arguing with you, as it's probably pointless.
Maybe because your arguments are so full of factual errors that you can't defend them?
You can't surely disagree with this as it's also the basis of the GPL - everyone donates their work if others do the same.
Actually, I can disagree with this since it is completely bogus. This isn't the basis of the GPL, the only basis the GPL has it to protect the _users_ freedom.
Therefore, if the Microsoft's of this world stopped innovating, ALL innovation in software would cease if left up to free software alone.
Once again I suggest that you open a book about computer history, "Microsoft's of this world" have done either very little so called "innovating", or none at all.
You will of course disagree with this, go read my past posts to this mailing list first.
There is nothing to "disagree" with since it is false, and on the verge of being a lie.
Under a better system, everyone who takes risks/innovates gets reward. The GPL can only really be applied to things like software, applying it to other intangibles like music and movies just doesn't work.
The GPL (or the principals) applies quite fine to music, now instead of computer history you should look at music history, classical and folk music are good places to start. I do not watch movies that much, but I cannot see why the same wouldn't apply there.
You really should read up on computer history before making the absurd claims that you are doing...
"Microsoft's of this world" have done either very little so called "innovating", or none at all.
If they have innovated anything, then it is the idea that users do not need or deserve any kind of freedom to use, modify and distribute software!
On 30 Mar 2005 at 23:57, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
No, theft is when you lose what was due to you by right.
And you didn't loose the source code, hence no theft. What part of this do you not grasp?
You lose the money that you would have earned if someone else hadn't stolen your code and sold it instead of you. I agree it's not the same as perhaps you were a lousy seller and couldn't have made the money anyway - but IMHO if you take risk and be step change innovative, you must get money. In an ideal legal framework, you would be *encouraging* people to "steal" your code because that would generate additional revenue for you - but under such a system, it's no longer stealing.
There is a very simple formula for determining whether a moral crime has been committed - was there a victim? If there was, it was a moral crime.
And this isn't the "formula" that is used in either law or in common sense.
<offtopic> It's a good guiding principle, and one that should be more often applied everywhere - then we wouldn't have some of our stupid & doomed laws. </offtopic>
You can't surely disagree with this as it's also the basis of the GPL - everyone donates their work if others do the same.
Actually, I can disagree with this since it is completely bogus. This isn't the basis of the GPL, the only basis the GPL has it to protect the _users_ freedom.
The GPL equates users with programmers as with source access all users can become programmers. Hence my statement stands - under the GPL, everyone donates their work if others do the same.
Therefore, if the Microsoft's of this world stopped innovating, ALL innovation in software would cease if left up to free software alone.
Once again I suggest that you open a book about computer history, "Microsoft's of this world" have done either very little so called "innovating", or none at all.
You will of course disagree with this, go read my past posts to this mailing list first.
There is nothing to "disagree" with since it is false, and on the verge of being a lie.
Microsoft brought a whole raft of mainframe & laboratory features to the home user in a format they could operate without arcane technical knowledge. If that isn't step-change innovation in a nutshell, I don't know what is.
Under a better system, everyone who takes risks/innovates gets reward. The GPL can only really be applied to things like software, applying it to other intangibles like music and movies just doesn't work.
The GPL (or the principals) applies quite fine to music, now instead of computer history you should look at music history, classical and folk music are good places to start. I do not watch movies that much, but I cannot see why the same wouldn't apply there.
No they're not. Software is of a fundamentally different type than music, books or movies because /it/ /is/ /a/ /tool/ used to amplify human effort. It is therefore more like a spanner than a song.
Creating music requires money, and doesn't generate much in return naturally (it's why there were so few full-time musicians a hundred years ago). At the very least, it costs what the artist would earn working in a field or factory for the same period of time and people naturally don't donate much to musicians unless they are very, very good.
Similarly, writing a book requires even more money and generates even less naturally. Before the printing press, it took people years to duplicate books and there was virtually no return on investment, hence mostly only monks did it. After the printing press, plagerism was rife and despite copyright, has continued ever since - if it weren't that economies of scale caused only a few printers to emerge, copyright could never have been enforced. Nevertheless, many more books got written than would be otherwise if it hadn't been the primary method of disseminating propaganda for centuries.
Lastly, a movie requires even way more money again (now you have dozens of professionals to pay over weeks or months) and generates even less again (as a proportion of its costs) than books or music if it weren't for the rule of law and hitherto hegemony of the US movie studios.
The prevalence of each form decreases under the GPL in reverse order - so if you GPLed a movie, it would never get made. If you GPLed a book, anything more than a short one would never get made and besides, too many cooks spoil the broth. You may have some luck with music that doesn't require mixing and mastering, but again they're all loss making ventures.
Compare to GPLed software - here releasing your software to the wild /makes/ /you/ /money/ because you outsource development & debugging costs. Everyone benefits. This is only made possible because software is a TOOL which gives forth to different effects than most other intangibles.
You really should read up on computer history before making the absurd claims that you are doing...
And you should bear in mind that I have been defending these views for years in this and other more hostile forums. You'll eventually dismiss me after I unsettle you and you get bored of me, deciding I am a crackpot and go on believing what you do. But hey, maybe someday I'll convince someone I may have a point and until then, this lives on inside google.
Cheers, Niall
And you didn't loose the source code, hence no theft. What part of this do you not grasp?
You lose the money that you would have earned if someone else hadn't stolen your code and sold it instead of you.
Irrelevant.
There is a very simple formula for determining whether a moral crime has been committed - was there a victim? If there was, it was a moral crime.
And this isn't the "formula" that is used in either law or in common sense.
<offtopic> It's a good guiding principle, and one that should be more often applied everywhere - then we wouldn't have some of our stupid & doomed laws. </offtopic>
It is not a good guiding principle simple because it is totally wrong, theft is the loose of property, nothing else.
You can't surely disagree with this as it's also the basis of the GPL - everyone donates their work if others do the same.
Actually, I can disagree with this since it is completely bogus. This isn't the basis of the GPL, the only basis the GPL has it to protect the _users_ freedom.
The GPL equates users with programmers as with source access all users can become programmers. Hence my statement stands - under the GPL, everyone donates their work if others do the same.
No it doesn't, since it isn't the basis for the GPL.
Creating music requires money,
Go listen to some folk music.
and doesn't generate much in return naturally (it's why there were so few full-time musicians a hundred years ago).
Go to a pub a few hundred years ago, music has always existed in many forms, and there have always been many "full-time" muscicians. It is part of human nature to produce and listen to music.
Music has long enjoyed the same freedoms that free software has, and the freedoms that the GPL protects.
At the very least, it costs what the artist would earn working in a field or factory for the same period of time and people naturally don't donate much to musicians unless they are very, very good.
Or they enjoy it enough to do it for the joy of it. Money isn't the means to an end you know, not everything that one does must circulate around the idea to make lots of money.
Similarly, writing a book requires even more money and generates even less naturally. Before the printing press, it took people years to duplicate books and there was virtually no return on investment, hence mostly only monks did it.
The only reason why monks did it was because they were taught to read and write, not because it took a long time or cost alot.
Lastly, a movie requires even way more money again (now you have dozens of professionals to pay over weeks or months) and generates even less again (as a proportion of its costs) than books or music if it weren't for the rule of law and hitherto hegemony of the US movie studios.
I suggest that you look at a nice small local film festival, movies do not require mountains of cash, or a dozen of "professionals".
The prevalence of each form decreases under the GPL in reverse order - so if you GPLed a movie, it would never get made.
Do you have anything to backup this claim?
If you GPLed a book, anything more than a short one would never get made and besides, too many cooks spoil the broth.
Many GNU books were released under the GPL initally, and they were printed, so there goes that claim.
You may have some luck with music that doesn't require mixing and mastering, but again they're all loss making ventures.
Go listen to some folk music.
Compare to GPLed software - here releasing your software to the wild /makes/ /you/ /money/ because you outsource development & debugging costs.
It doesn't make me money, and it isn't why I release my code under the GPL either.
Everyone benefits.
Everyone only benefits if they have the right to use, modify and distribute the code.
You'll eventually dismiss me after I unsettle you and you get bored of me, deciding I am a crackpot and go on believing what you do.
No, the reason why I would dismiss you is because of your constant lies, name calling and hostile tone in your messages.
You obviously have been brainwashed to consider money the only important thing in the world, more important then freedom, fun and usefulness. Greed, the lust for more money, is what makes this world such a sad place to live in.
On Thu, 2005-03-31 at 03:22 +0100, Niall Douglas wrote:
You lose the money that you would have earned if someone else hadn't stolen your code and sold it instead of you. I agree it's not the same as perhaps you were a lousy seller and couldn't have made the money anyway - but IMHO if you take risk and be step change innovative, you must get money. In an ideal legal framework, you would be *encouraging* people to "steal" your code because that would generate additional revenue for you - but under such a system, it's no longer stealing.
Niall, I'm quite surprised after so much time on these list you still have the courage to speak of stealing. You sadly remember me of some stupid advertise being added on DVD films that equate movies download to car stealing, here in Italy. I remember you had interesting opinions in the past, it seem that time is gone, sadly. Anyway it is also surprising to see that you think money is everything in life. Not all people want money as reward (some do not even want a reward) for their job, your vision seem to be really distort.
A _good_ legal framework would let anyone have the reward they like, not necessarily money, as long as it doesn't hurt other people.
The GPL equates users with programmers as with source access all users can become programmers. Hence my statement stands - under the GPL, everyone donates their work if others do the same.
No, there's still a big difference, the copyright owner still have all the freedom, even the freedom to change the license. Users don't, they have freedom to use, modify and redistribute, but they can't change the license. So there's still a big difference. What you are speaking of are the BSD-like licenses they equate users and programmers completely.
Microsoft brought a whole raft of mainframe & laboratory features to the home user in a format they could operate without arcane technical knowledge. If that isn't step-change innovation in a nutshell, I don't know what is.
Niall, this is pure lie. Please where have you been the past 25 years? Microsoft didn't brought anything like "mainframe & laboratory features to the home user". Where have you read this lie?
The innovation that made it possible to bring complicated computing machines to the man of the street was made by others. You may claim Intel was one of the first that made a chip affordable and powerful enough to be put in home computers. You may praise Xerox Park laboratories for the creation of the graphical interface. You may say thanks to Unix programmers for having made one of the first portable and usable shell based system. And you may say Apple made the first user friendly system.
But what did Microsoft? - Have they ever designed a piece of hardware their system run on? No. - Have they designed a good user interface from scratch? DOS? was that a usable interface? It was crappier then unix, copied down from CP/M, a lot less powerful and user friendly than others... Windows 1.0/2.0/3.0 ? The MACs were infinitely better at that time and came out before any version of Windows.
So in a perfect legal system as you advocate Microsoft should have never growth, they should have died long ago.
No they're not. Software is of a fundamentally different type than music, books or movies because /it/ /is/ /a/ /tool/ used to amplify human effort. It is therefore more like a spanner than a song.
It's like both, and equally different. It's a whole different thing with it's own peculiarities. It's not something you can correctly equate to any of the two aspects alone.
Creating music requires money, and doesn't generate much in return naturally (it's why there were so few full-time musicians a hundred years ago).
Ah that's why Beethoven and Mozart do not exist ... all stand clear. A few hundred years ago there may have been as many musicians as today, but do you really think you would know? Do you know how many cookers there where a few hundreds years ago? Or how many shoemakers ? You know a very few names because only the very brightest and brilliant ones are remembered in any field of human creativity.
At the very least, it costs what the artist would earn working in a field or factory for the same period of time and people naturally don't donate much to musicians unless they are very, very good.
Do you think a musicians must do it full time to be good? Do you think people only care about feeding their stomach? Even a few hundred years ago people knew there's not only the stomach to be fed, but also the mind requires some intellectual food. The form: music, theater, games, etc ..
Similarly, writing a book requires even more money and generates even less naturally.
Have you actually ever tried to write a book? What money do you need? Take a pen and paper. You can easily do it in the evening, it doesn't need to be a full time job. It can, and some people are so good in expressing their words that are able to make a living from it. But _writing_ a book does not cost _a lot_ of money.
Before the printing press, it took people years to duplicate books and there was virtually no return on investment, hence mostly only monks did it.
This has to do with duplicating books, which is an entirely different matter, and is completely un-influent today. Today coping cost is ~ 0.
After the printing press, plagerism was rife and despite copyright, has continued ever since - if it weren't that economies of scale caused only a few printers to emerge, copyright could never have been enforced.
You should study a bit of copyright History. Look at where it come from. It was never intended to stop plagiarism until very recently. The copyright history is a story of censorship and monopoly. Please be careful on what facts you based your opinions on. You are very mislead on some arguments.
Nevertheless, many more books got written than would be otherwise if it hadn't been the primary method of disseminating propaganda for centuries.
Yeah Platone and Aristotele where great propaganda ... sure.
Lastly, a movie requires even way more money again (now you have dozens of professionals to pay over weeks or months) and generates even less again (as a proportion of its costs) than books or music if it weren't for the rule of law and hitherto hegemony of the US movie studios.
That's true for movie makers that are able to express themselves only through gigantic special effects. They are costly. But there are lot of other films that cost orders of magnitude less. I'm not saying we shouldn't see big, costly special effects, but that cannot be a justification of any sort for a broken system of monopoly and control.
The prevalence of each form decreases under the GPL in reverse order - so if you GPLed a movie, it would never get made. If you GPLed a book, anything more than a short one would never get made and besides, too many cooks spoil the broth. You may have some luck with music that doesn't require mixing and mastering, but again they're all loss making ventures.
Oh, so you're still trying to apply a dying market classification to a new way of production? You seem a man who lived in the mean of the Industrial revolution that still think in terms of lands and lords, while the world is changing around him.
I think you're a bit confused, you're trying to mix 2 worlds together and see they do not match, they can't match from the point of view you decided to take.
Simo.
On 3 Apr 2005 at 12:30, Simo Sorce wrote:
You lose the money that you would have earned if someone else hadn't stolen your code and sold it instead of you. I agree it's not the same as perhaps you were a lousy seller and couldn't have made the money anyway - but IMHO if you take risk and be step change innovative, you must get money. In an ideal legal framework, you would be *encouraging* people to "steal" your code because that would generate additional revenue for you - but under such a system, it's no longer stealing.
Niall, I'm quite surprised after so much time on these list you still have the courage to speak of stealing. You sadly remember me of some stupid advertise being added on DVD films that equate movies download to car stealing, here in Italy.
Perhaps I am not being clear enough. I am speaking of how people see the current system - which isn't the same as the *actual* system. People tend to equate second order loss as first order eg; if this earthquake kills my children, then I must have offended a god.
People equate the loss of what you might have got if someone hadn't pilfered your money making thing (ie; potential profit) with that of real profit. Another example is that of gambling, where what drives people is the belief that they beat the average and can come out ahead.
Now what links the concept of duplication of an idea and stealing of an idea is precisely this phenomenon. It exists because the copyright and patent law make it so. Change the law, and you change the association. As I mentioned in my example, under a different legal framework you *want* your idea "stolen" from you as it makes more money for you.
Hence why I state that to free software, to truly *free* software, it needs the law substantially changing. The GPL does not free software, it puts it in different chains - some better than proprietary, some equal and some worse. Anything based in copyright and/or software patents must do so to some extent.
I remember you had interesting opinions in the past, it seem that time is gone, sadly. Anyway it is also surprising to see that you think money is everything in life. Not all people want money as reward (some do not even want a reward) for their job, your vision seem to be really distort.
There are three things which drive humans, as evidenced by the last few thousand years of history:
1. Sex 2. Improving understanding/Gaining knowledge 3. Capacity to affect change
All three are about enabling creativity which is the primary role of all biological life. The first actually has an important role in creation of software, but it and improving understanding are outside the scope of this email though ancillory to it. The third can be realised in many ways - ego-boosting, standing for election, peer recognition etc. but the most important since Norman times at least is increasing ones wealth.
A _good_ legal framework would let anyone have the reward they like, not necessarily money, as long as it doesn't hurt other people.
A *good* legal framework would ensure that material wealth is distributed to those who most benefit society. Otherwise, put frankly, it goes to already rich people in its entirety and society ossifies and dies (as it has countless times in human history). The great success of the Occidental Empire has been the invention of rich people voluntarily giving creative poorer people material wealth, thus drawing more people into it and setting a benchmark for the entire of society to aim at. There is only around genetically 20% of creative people in the population (can vary according to analysis methods) and a thriving society is one which encourages them, especially as culture's natural tendency is to reign them in.
The GPL equates users with programmers as with source access all users can become programmers. Hence my statement stands - under the GPL, everyone donates their work if others do the same.
No, there's still a big difference, the copyright owner still have all the freedom, even the freedom to change the license. Users don't, they have freedom to use, modify and redistribute, but they can't change the license. So there's still a big difference. What you are speaking of are the BSD-like licenses they equate users and programmers completely.
That is an artifact of copyright law, not of the GPL itself. The GPL or any license cannot give or remove rights copyright law does not permit a license to perform - thus, any extra freedoms the copyright owner may have have nothing to do with the GPL.
I still hold that under the GPL, everyone donates their work if others do the same. Consider this - what software project do you know of which annotates each and every source change by each programmer every time into the source itself? I suppose a CVS log would do it, but what about admins who commit a patch written by someone else?
The reality is that no one claims copyright on their individual edits because it is impractical. They can no more license their own edits under a different licence to the GPL than build a working project from their own edits alone.
Microsoft brought a whole raft of mainframe & laboratory features to the home user in a format they could operate without arcane technical knowledge. If that isn't step-change innovation in a nutshell, I don't know what is.
Niall, this is pure lie. Please where have you been the past 25 years? Microsoft didn't brought anything like "mainframe & laboratory features to the home user". Where have you read this lie?
Off the top of my head, who other brought the following features from mainframe operating systems to more than 5% of the computer using public first?
1: Multithreading (Preemptive multitasking too with the exception of the Amiga) 2: Multiple users 3: Memory protection for processes 4: Individual ACL based file security 5: Over 85% binary compatibility with the previous twenty years of programs for the same architecture (it may be that Apples beat this) 6: POSIX compliance (yes, NT had this over a decade ago) 7: Smoothed fonts (Acorn RISC-OS had this in the early 90's, then Apples I think but after Windows) 8: Remote desktops (yes X11 had this, but again didn't beat 5%. It may be that VNC beat Win2k) 9: Asynchronous device i/o 10: Virtual memory (Amigas might have had this, I can't remember)
Some of these will be false depending on when NT made 5% market penetration - I don't know when that was, I assumed 1997.
The innovation that made it possible to bring complicated computing machines to the man of the street was made by others. You may claim Intel was one of the first that made a chip affordable and powerful enough to be put in home computers. You may praise Xerox Park laboratories for the creation of the graphical interface. You may say thanks to Unix programmers for having made one of the first portable and usable shell based system. And you may say Apple made the first user friendly system.
Actually I wouldn't claim the Intel point.
But what did Microsoft?
- Have they ever designed a piece of hardware their system run on? No.
- Have they designed a good user interface from scratch? DOS? was that
a usable interface? It was crappier then unix, copied down from CP/M, a lot less powerful and user friendly than others... Windows 1.0/2.0/3.0 ? The MACs were infinitely better at that time and came out before any version of Windows.
Look at Windows 95. By all rights, that software shouldn't never have worked at all. It was crap in every way possible, except that amazingly it did work long enough for people to get some stuff done. Admitted, it was nasty, but it was a damn sight better than Win3.1 and DOS. And it contained, if nothing else, an API modelled around a real OS (not itself) which got into a massive market share, such that we thankfully are no longer stuck with writing for 16 bit x86 rubbish as 32 bit binaries then written run on real operating systems now (which they were actually written for, not 95 itself).
So in a perfect legal system as you advocate Microsoft should have never growth, they should have died long ago.
I have no problem with MS stealing other people's ideas if MS pays that person for their idea. However, with software, it's of greater benefit if people could sell their /implementations/ of an idea with the idea itself unprotectable. Then you could get people writing features for Windows which MS would find cheaper to buy than develop itself. This leads to a collaborative development form, much like open software. Of course, full source would need to be supplied with Windows to make this possible.
[rest chopped as all those points explained by the above]
Cheers, Niall
Niall wrote:
[...] Software is of a fundamentally different type than music, books or movies because /it/ /is/ /a/ /tool/ used to amplify human effort. It is therefore more like a spanner than a song.
My song helps cause a revolution and is saved as a file on disk. Why is it fundamentally different to other software? Software is just a stream of bits, a sequence of 0s and 1s. "We can't depend for the long run on distinguishing one bitstream from another in order to figure out which rules apply."
I have some sympathy for those who think there are some different categories, but I don't think one can robustly claim it is the format of creative work that makes it different.
El Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 09:46:56PM +0100, Niall Douglas deia:
No, theft is when you lose what was due to you by right. There is a very simple formula for determining whether a moral crime has been committed - was there a victim? If there was, it was a moral crime.
I suspect your definitions of crime and victim are circular. Anyway, nobody has said copyright violations aren't crimes (or fellonies, or whatever is the proper term). We're just saying it isn't stealing, it's a different crime.
Imagine I start telling lies about you and your company and I'm so successful at it that people cease to trust you and you get out of business. Is that stealing ? no, it's libel. Imagine I kill you and therefore you loose all you had. Is that stealing ? not it's much worse, it's murder. Not all crimes are theft.
About your views on authors needing reward and GPL being uncommercial, I'm afraid your problem is you don't understand the world you are in. Your belief is that the GPL is not attractive enough for authors, but then you see a lot of authors using it, and you can't understand it. You keep telling things against the GPL as if every author was forced to use GPL for her original works. If you don't like it don't use. Depending on which license you use (and what your works are) I will use your works or not. It's as simple as that. Of course you have a right to tell people not to use works under GPL or not to produce such works, as I have a right to explain why I think it's a good idea.
It's also very dangerous to think that work deserves reward. That's completely skewing the market. If I start working at moving stones around my yard from one corner to another and then back again, I'd better not expect any reward from it. Likewise if you start coding something and distribute it with unreasonable license terms, don't expect me to pay you for it. The reward is afforded because of the /value/ of the work done, not because of the fact that some work has been done. It also depends on what alternatives are available. But pretending that just any work should be rewarded is dangerous (since we need more optimal work for what is needed not just more work, that'd be just wasteful). Maybe if you start looking at things from the user point of view you're realise the GPL makes commercial sense (at least when the market is a level playing field, i.e. legislation is right).
It's also unrealistic to pretend that the reward for any work must be monetary, but that is not so important in comparison, you are right to base any development framework on monetary incentives, as long as non paid work is not forbidden or discriminated.
P.S.: Sorry if I can't keep in this thread. The only reason I read it at all is that I couldn't find a wifi hotspot to download fresh mail to read in this train trip.
On Wed, 2005-03-23 at 09:46 +0000, Niall Douglas wrote:
On 23 Mar 2005 at 9:16, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
Including code from non-free libraries will make your package non-free. > > Not true. The result would be illegal, not
non-free. For it to > be legal the whole work has to be licensed under the GNU GPL.
And what you've just said is completely untrue
,----[ The GNU General Public License - Section 2 ] | b. You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that | in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program | or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge | to all third parties under the terms of this License. `----
There is a HUGE difference between "under the terms of this License" and "under this License". The former means what I said, the latter what you said.
And there is a HUGE difference between "under the terms of *this* license" and "under terms equivalent to those of this license"
To me the text seems quite clear. But I've thought, before, as you seem to do now, so I hope you'll eventually come to understand it as well.
Rui
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
Including code from non-free libraries will make your package non-free.
Not true. The result would be illegal, not non-free. For it to be legal the whole work has to be licensed under the GNU GPL.
,----[ The GNU General Public License - Section 2 ] | b. You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that | in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program | or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge | to all third parties under the terms of this License. `----
According to my understanding of the matter, if I use the GNU GPL, then these conditions apply to people who want to use my code. A library with a different license may permit me to use and distribute it in combination with my package. However, this doesn't make that library part of "the Program", i.e., my package, nor does it cause the GNU GPL to apply to the library.
Laurence Finston
,----[ The GNU General Public License - Section 2 ] | b. You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that | in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program | or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge | to all third parties under the terms of this License. `----
According to my understanding of the matter, if I use the GNU GPL, then these conditions apply to people who want to use my code. A library with a different license may permit me to use and distribute it in combination with my package. However, this doesn't make that library part of "the Program", i.e., my package, nor does it cause the GNU GPL to apply to the library.
Not sure if I understand you correctly, but if "the Program" uses the library, then the library is part of "the Program", and as such the whole thing must fall under the GNU GPL[0], since "You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, [...], to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third aprties under the terms of this License".
[0]: I'm ignoring the case when the non-free library has a similar clause that states that the programs linking to the library must be under the terms of the non-free license.
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
Not sure if I understand you correctly, but if "the Program" uses the library, then the library is part of "the Program", and as such the whole thing must fall under the GNU GPL[0], since "You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, [...], to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third aprties under the terms of this License".
I don't think so. For example, my package uses GNU Bison and I include a Bison input file in my sources. If I choose, I can distribute Bison with my package, since its license permits me to do so. It doesn't matter that both my package and Bison are licensed under the GPL; I could do the same with a package with a different license, if the license permitted me to redistribute the package. This doesn't make Bison part of my package or my package part of Bison.
Another example would be if I were to use the libplot library supplied as part of the GNU plotutils package. Here, I would include its header files in my sources and link to the library when compiling. In this case, the packages are mixed more intimately, but the comments above still apply.
[0]: I'm ignoring the case when the non-free library has a similar clause that states that the programs linking to the library must be under the terms of the non-free license.
I am pretty certain that merely linking to a library does not give the owners of that library any rights over my code. I am also pretty certain that linking two packages, in the literal sense of using a linker to generate a file of object code, does not unite the packages in a legal sense. Even so, I will certainly not make any free software I write dependent on a library with a license that makes similar claims, whether they are ultimately enforceable or not.
If anyone wants an official answer to this or similar difficult questions, I suggest he or she contact `licensing@fsf.org'.
Laurence Finston
For example, my package uses GNU Bison and I include a Bison input file in my sources. If I choose, I can distribute Bison with my package, since its license permits me to do so.
You are confusing "derived" and a compilation, which this would be. It is the same thing as distributing a GPL program on a CD with a non-free program.
Another example would be if I were to use the libplot library supplied as part of the GNU plotutils package. Here, I would include its header files in my sources and link to the library when compiling. In this case, the packages are mixed more intimately, but the comments above still apply.
Your comments don't apply to this case at all, linking a non-free program with a GPL library is infact illegal. Since the non-free program will become part of (derived work) the library and vice versa! Merley including a GPLed header in a non-free program is _also_ illegal, because of the same reason. Think what happens when the C preprocessor does its magic, and you will see why, the linker case is a bit more subtle, for the static library case, it is quite simple since the end result will contain the GPLed code. In the dynamic library case it is a bit harder; but it is easy to see if you just remove the library and then try to use the program (and the fact that the non-free program will infact contain bits from the headers which are copyrighted).
I am pretty certain that merely linking to a library does not give the owners of that library any rights over my code. I am also pretty certain that linking two packages, in the literal sense of using a linker to generate a file of object code, does not unite the packages in a legal sense.
Sorry, but you are wrong on both accounts. See the GPL FAQ for the offical answer.
If anyone wants an official answer to this or similar difficult questions, I suggest he or she contact `licensing@fsf.org'.
Or just look at the GPL FAQ which already has answers for this; but if that would fail for whatever reason, then asking the FSF people is a good idea.
Cheers!
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
For example, my package uses GNU Bison and I include a Bison input file in my sources. If I choose, I can distribute Bison with my package, since its license permits me to do so.
You are confusing "derived" and a compilation, which this would be. It is the same thing as distributing a GPL program on a CD with a non-free program.
My point was that using and/or distributing it with my package would not combine them into a single package.
Another example would be if I were to use the libplot library supplied as part of the GNU plotutils package. Here, I would include its header files in my sources and link to the library when compiling. In this case, the packages are mixed more intimately, but the comments above still apply.
Your comments don't apply to this case at all,
In this case, the license of GNU plotutils permits me to use it in combination with my package, and there is no conflict with the license of my package. The licenses are, in fact, the same, but they could differ, as long as this use did not conflict with either of them.
linking a non-free program with a GPL library is infact illegal.
This is not the case I was discussing. I was discussing the case of a free program linking with an unfree library. The license of that library might permit me to link to it while still being unfree in other respects, using the FSF's definition of freedom. I do not believe I would be breaking any law by linking my program to it. I certainly wouldn't distribute it with my package without checking with the FSF first.
The following links may be of interest: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FSWithNFLibs http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs
Since the non-free program will become part of (derived work) the library and vice versa!
A program that includes a library does not become part of the library, but the text at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation seems to indicate that the library becomes part of the program. I don't entirely agree with this interpretation, and would check with the FSF if it ever became relevant for me. However, I have no plans to ever link free code that I write with unfree libraries.
Merley including a GPLed header in a non-free program is _also_ illegal, because of the same reason.
Perhaps, but this isn't my problem. I was trying to help someone who wants to write a free program.
Think what happens when the C preprocessor does its magic, and you will see why,
I don't understand your point. (I don't find CPP particularly magical, myself.)
I am pretty certain that merely linking to a library does not give the owners of that library any rights over my code. I am also pretty certain that linking two packages, in the literal sense of using a linker to generate a file of object code, does not unite the packages in a legal sense.
Sorry, but you are wrong on both accounts. See the GPL FAQ for the offical answer.
I think these entries support my point of view, but I really recommend asking at the FSF to be sure before actually distributing code.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FSWithNFLibs http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs
Laurence
On Mi, 2005-03-23 at 15:39 +0100, Laurence Finston wrote:
The following links may be of interest: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FSWithNFLibs http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs
This links talk about linking my GPLed program with a non-free lib. I think this point is quite clear, i as the copyright holder of the program can give a special permission to link again this non-free lib.
The question is, what happens if i use also an GPLed lib in the same program were i don't have the copyright? Than i can't give a special permission for the GPLed lib. So if linking a program with two libs creates a derivated work of each other, than i can't do it until i have a permission form the copyright holder of the GPLed lib.
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005, Bjoern Schiessle wrote:
On Mi, 2005-03-23 at 15:39 +0100, Laurence Finston wrote:
The following links may be of interest: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FSWithNFLibs http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs
This links talk about linking my GPLed program with a non-free lib. I think this point is quite clear, i as the copyright holder of the program can give a special permission to link again this non-free lib.
I interpret this differently: The copyright holder of the non-free library has given you permission to link your code to the library. This permission may be granted to everybody in the library's license.
The question is, what happens if i use also an GPLed lib in the same program were i don't have the copyright?
This is a direct quote from `http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs':
"But if you want to use parts of other GPL-covered programs by other authors in your code, you cannot authorize the exception for them. You have to get the approval of the copyright holders of those programs."
So if linking a program with two libs creates a derivated work of each other, than i can't do it until i have a permission form the copyright holder of the GPLed lib.
If A writes a library and B a program that links to A's library, I don't believe that this makes A's library a work derived from B's program. However, if I ever really needed to know this, I would ask at the FSF.
Personally, I will do my best to stay away from non-free libraries when I'm writing free software, and that's what I'd recommend to anyone else who wants to do the same. I think it would be a better use of one's time and energy to work on writing a free replacement for the non-free library.
Laurence
The question is, what happens if i use also an GPLed lib in the same program were i don't have the copyright? Than i can't give a special permission for the GPLed lib. So if linking a program with two libs creates a derivated work of each other, than i can't do it until i have a permission form the copyright holder of the GPLed lib.
Correct, or license your program under the GPL or a GPL compatible license. For example, GNU Readline (a GPLed library) can't be used by non-free programs.
For example, my package uses GNU Bison and I include a Bison input file in my sources. If I choose, I can distribute Bison with my package, since its license permits me to do so.
You are confusing "derived" and a compilation, which this would be. It is the same thing as distributing a GPL program on a CD with a non-free program.
My point was that using and/or distributing it with my package would not combine them into a single package.
Depends on what you mean by using; linking is using, running the program in question is also using. The term "using" is to vauge here.
linking a non-free program with a GPL library is infact illegal.
This is not the case I was discussing. I was discussing the case of a free program linking with an unfree library.
Then I misunderstood you, in that case it depends on the non-free library; it could quite well restrict programs to link to it that do not fall under a special license (similary how the GPL does it).
Since the non-free program will become part of (derived work) the library and vice versa!
A program that includes a library does not become part of the library, but the text at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation seems to indicate that the library becomes part of the program. I don't entirely agree with this interpretation, and would check with the FSF if it ever became relevant for me.
You lost me here, which part of my sentence do you not agree with, and which part do you not agree with the interpretation of the FSF?
However, I have no plans to ever link free code that I write with unfree libraries.
Neither do I. :-)
Think what happens when the C preprocessor does its magic, and you will see why,
I don't understand your point. (I don't find CPP particularly magical, myself.)
The end result will contain GPL code + non-free code since cpp includes both in the end result, and since the GPL mandates that the whole work must be licensed under the GPL. If this was legal, then you could jump around the GPL just by doing #include "gpled-code.c".
As for cpp being magical, that wasn't what I said... "does its magic" means "does whatever it usually does with all the directives etc etc etc".
I am pretty certain that merely linking to a library does not give the owners of that library any rights over my code. I am also pretty certain that linking two packages, in the literal sense of using a linker to generate a file of object code, does not unite the packages in a legal sense.
Sorry, but you are wrong on both accounts. See the GPL FAQ for the offical answer.
I think these entries support my point of view, but I really recommend asking at the FSF to be sure before actually distributing code.
I fail to see how those URLs supports your view. You are using the code from the library, it is the same as using someone else code, so the copyright holder can infact tell you what you can or cannot do with the code you use. Ditto for linking.
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
Depends on what you mean by using; linking is using, running the program in question is also using. The term "using" is to vauge here.
Please excuse my vagueness. I call Bison and pass it an input file which I've written. Bison generates a file of C++ code which I compile and link with the object files generated from my own code.
Since the non-free program will become part of (derived work) the library and vice versa!
A program that includes a library does not become part of the library, but the text at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation seems to indicate that the library becomes part of the program. I don't entirely agree with this interpretation, and would check with the FSF if it ever became relevant for me.
You lost me here, which part of my sentence do you not agree with, and which part do you not agree with the interpretation of the FSF?
I don't believe that a library becomes a "derived work" of a program that includes it (it was the "and vice versa" part). I meant that I don't entirely agree with what's said at `http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation'. Since it probably won't become relevant for me, I don't see any reason to bring up the subject at the FSF.
The end result will contain GPL code + non-free code since cpp includes both in the end result, and since the GPL mandates that the whole work must be licensed under the GPL. If this was legal, then you could jump around the GPL just by doing #include "gpled-code.c".
Thanks for the explanation. Under the circumstances, I think it would be safest to not distribute preprocessed code or object code if there's any question about license conditions. This would not, of course, be complete protection against license infringement. However, I'm not concerned with the question of non-free programs including free libraries. Generally speaking, I think libraries should be considered as separate entities from packages that include them. They are, after all, written with this intention. I can see that this is a tricky question and it might be difficult to translate into legal terms. However, since my package is free and the licenses of the packages it uses are also free, I don't feel impelled to do anything about this.
As for cpp being magical, that wasn't what I said... "does its magic" means "does whatever it usually does with all the directives etc etc etc".
No offense meant.
I fail to see how those URLs supports your view. You are using the code from the library, it is the same as using someone else code, so the copyright holder can infact tell you what you can or cannot do with the code you use. Ditto for linking.
You claimed that certain actions would be illegal. I interpret the passages in the GNU GPL FAQ as indicating that they would not be, assuming the license of the library permits the intended use.
If anyone has any further questions, please ask at `licensing@fsf.org'. I've answered to the best of my ability, but I've reached the limits of my knowledge on this subject.
Laurence
Please excuse my vagueness. I call Bison and pass it an input file which I've written. Bison generates a file of C++ code which I compile and link with the object files generated from my own code.
Note that this depends on what Bison includes, and what the license is of Bison. I think Bison (like gcc, automake, and autoconf) has a special clause that allows you to use the output under any license you wish.
Under a plain version of the GPL, then I think this would the output a derived work.
I don't believe that a library becomes a "derived work" of a program that includes it (it was the "and vice versa" part). I meant that I don't entirely agree with what's said at `http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation'.
I fail to see what there is to disagree with, the program and library become one entity, so you have made a derived work of the program, and of the library.
I can see that this is a tricky question and it might be difficult to translate into legal terms.
I don't see how it is tricky, A includes B in some way to create C, then C must follow the license of A _and_ B. If the license of A and B are incompatible, then C is illegal. Now one can argue about what "include" means, I think that if they share code in anyway then this constitues inclusion. Note how this is differnt from just using (more precisly, running something) the code.
However, since my package is free and the licenses of the packages it uses are also free, I don't feel impelled to do anything about this.
I'm not arguing or even trying to convince you that you should do anything.
No offense meant.
None taken. :)
You claimed that certain actions would be illegal. I interpret the passages in the GNU GPL FAQ as indicating that they would not be, assuming the license of the library permits the intended use.
Yes, but in this case (the GPL) doesn't premit this. If it would premit it, then the whole discussion is kinda useles, no?
On Thu, 2005-03-24 at 11:41 +0100, Laurence Finston wrote:
I don't believe that a library becomes a "derived work" of a program that includes it (it was the "and vice versa" part). I meant that I don't entirely agree with what's said at `http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation'. Since it probably won't become relevant for me, I don't see any reason to bring up the subject at the FSF.
I'd like to help you with a reference to writing books.
Including libraries (dinamically or staticly is just a simple optimization means) is like including a text into the book, without which, the book is unreadable.
This is not similar to a bibliographic reference.
Rui
Laurence Finston wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
Not sure if I understand you correctly, but if "the Program" uses the library, then the library is part of "the Program", and as such the whole thing must fall under the GNU GPL[0], since "You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, [...], to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third aprties under the terms of this License".
I don't think so. For example, my package uses GNU Bison and I include a Bison input file in my sources. If I choose, I can distribute Bison with my package, since its license permits me to do so. It doesn't matter that both my package and Bison are licensed under the GPL; I could do the same with a package with a different license, if the license permitted me to redistribute the package. This doesn't make Bison part of my package or my package part of Bison.
It makes a part of Bison, namely it's parsing code that it copied almost literally, part of your package. Bison contains a special exception to allow linking of it's output (LALR(1) only, up to now) with non-GPL programs. This was discussed very recently on help-bison, so you might have been aware of this, BTW. So you can't generalize from Bison to other packages that don't have such an exception.
Frank
Frank Heckenbach wrote:
It makes a part of Bison, namely it's parsing code that it copied almost literally, part of your package. Bison contains a special exception to allow linking of it's output (LALR(1) only, up to now) with non-GPL programs.
It certainly does not make my package part of the Bison package, which has been claimed in this discussion, if I've understood the posters correctly. Nor do I believe that including a file generated by Bison makes the Bison package part of my package. The licenses involved specifically allow this use. In addition, I do not currently distribute any preprocessed code or object code. I don't know whether a court would consider the line `#include "parser.h"' in one of my source files and the line `g++ -c -o parser.o parser.c++' and the string "parser.o" in the linking command in my `Makefile.am' file to be "making Bison part of my package". In this case, the point is moot, because both packages are licensed under the GNU GPL.
In no case could the Bison developers be made responsible for any actions I take using my copies of their source code. The Bison package is what the Bison project distributes. Saying "my package becomes part of Bison" implies the opposite, which is why I feel it's important to emphasize this point.
This was discussed very recently on help-bison, so you might have been aware of this, BTW.
I am, and also that it was never the intention of the Bison project that the files output by Bison should fall under the GPL, just as text files written using GNU Emacs do not.
So you can't generalize from Bison to other packages that don't have such an exception.
I believe the problem was a copyright notice in Bison's output.
I used Bison as an example of one possible way of using packages in combination. I followed it with a different example using GNU Plotutils. For libraries with non-free licenses, I gave a reference to a section of the GNU GPL FAQ. I have also provided an address for anyone who still has questions. I hope that anyone with a genuine question about licenses now has enough information to go on with.
Laurence
This was discussed very recently on help-bison, so you might have been aware of this, BTW.
I am, and also that it was never the intention of the Bison project that the files output by Bison should fall under the GPL, just as text files written using GNU Emacs do not.
You are mightly confused. Emacs doesn't insert text magically for you, Bison on the other hand does.
You are also confusing legal issues vs. intention, if Bison inserts code that is GPLed (no extra exceptions) into its output, then the output as a whole must be under the GPL, this includes that the input (which is part of the output) must fall under the GPL. It doesn't matter what the intention of "the bison project" was.
For example, with versions prior bison 1.24 it is illegal to use bisons output to produce a non-free program; but after 1.24 the FSF[0] decided that one should be able to produce non-free software using bisons output, since there were other programs that did the same thing. And hence the license of bison has such a clause to allow for exactly this.
[0]: Note the Bison developers not much say in this, it is the the FSF that decides issues like this for GNU projects. Infact, it would be illegal for a developer to even change the license without permission from the copyright holder, i.e. the FSF.
Laurence Finston wrote:
Frank Heckenbach wrote:
It makes a part of Bison, namely it's parsing code that it copied almost literally, part of your package. Bison contains a special exception to allow linking of it's output (LALR(1) only, up to now) with non-GPL programs.
It certainly does not make my package part of the Bison package, which has been claimed in this discussion, if I've understood the posters correctly.
You're right, this is clearly not so.
Nor do I believe that including a file generated by Bison makes the Bison package part of my package.
Here I disagree. Not the entire Bison package, of course, but a part of Bison (as I wrote) becomes part of your package.
The licenses involved specifically allow this use.
If it wouldn't become part of your package, you wouldn't need to refer to the license in the first place. (E.g., if you use a tool like sed to produce part of your package from your own input, nobody would ask about the particular license of sed, as long as you can use it at all.)
In addition, I do not currently distribute any preprocessed code or object code.
Do you distribute the output of Bison? If you don't, it may be possible to distribute your package under a different license (if you wanted to), but anybody who wanted to compile the package would either have to use another parser generator, or would run into trouble with the GPL. (Strictly speaking, using such a thing for oneself is allowed, but distributing it in any way would violate the GPL.)
I don't know whether a court would consider the line `#include "parser.h"' in one of my source files and the line `g++ -c -o parser.o parser.c++' and the string "parser.o" in the linking command in my `Makefile.am' file to be "making Bison part of my package".
I suppose not, but how about running `bison parser.y' and using or distributing the resulting output?
This was discussed very recently on help-bison, so you might have been aware of this, BTW.
I am, and also that it was never the intention of the Bison project that the files output by Bison should fall under the GPL,
: From: Akim Demaille akim@lrde.epita.fr : Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 10:33:28 +0100 : : >>> "Paul" == Paul Hilfinger hilfingr@EECS.Berkeley.EDU writes: : : > In fact, this issue did get discussed when the GLR skeleton got : > introduced, and the language (or lack of it) is, AIR, deliberate on : > the part of the lead maintainers at the time. On consideration, I : > would prefer that the same terms apply to all skeletons as now apply : > to the C LALR(1) skeleton. I think that there does come a point at : > which copylefting becomes shooting oneself in the foot. : : That decision was made by RMS, prompted by me. I'm fine with putting : the exception on all the skeletons.
So it really was the intention (for the GLR skeleton), and they've now discussed changing it. (And as Alfred noted, originally it even was the intention for all skeletons.)
To avoid confusion, the issue with Bison is not about the tables etc. that it builds from your grammar, or with the semantic actions it copies literally (with substitutions) from your input, but from the parsing code that it copies almost literally from the Bison skeleton, and which is a nontrivial amount of code in itself.
just as text files written using GNU Emacs do not.
If Emacs contained, e.g., a macro that inserted a longish (and thus copyrightable) text into your editor, and this text was distributed with Emacs under the GPL without a special exception, it might actually. For an editor, this seems uncommon, but for a parser generator that's what it normally does.
So you can't generalize from Bison to other packages that don't have such an exception.
I believe the problem was a copyright notice in Bison's output.
Which didn't get there by chance ...
IANAL.
Frank
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
Including code from non-free libraries will make your package non-free.
Not true. The result would be illegal, not non-free.
The license of the library might permit one to use code from it, but still might make it non-free in the sense of the GNU GPL. For example, it might restrict the terms of redistribution.
For it to be legal the whole work has to be licensed under the GNU GPL.
I think this might not be quite correct, depending on what is meant by "the whole work". There are licenses considered by the FSF to be compatible with the GNU GPL. To be absolutely sure about licensing matters, it's always best to ask the people at the FSF who specialize in them.
Once can add a special execption to the GPLed library so one allows for non-free libraries to use it, see the GPL FAQ "How can I allow linking of proprietary modules with my GPL-covered library under a controlled interface only?"
I don't see any why one couldn't make it possible for one's code to be linkable to non-free libraries, as long as the interface to those libraries is either free or non-copyrightable. However, I don't think doing so would be a good idea.
Laurence Finston
Including code from non-free libraries will make your package non-free.
Not true. The result would be illegal, not non-free.
The license of the library might permit one to use code from it, but still might make it non-free in the sense of the GNU GPL. For example, it might restrict the terms of redistribution.
No, it would make it illegal. You wouldn't have any right to do anything with it, not even smell it. You just can't mix GPL code with non-free code in anyway unless the copyright holder gives you permission for it in a legally binding way.
For it to be legal the whole work has to be licensed under the GNU GPL.
I think this might not be quite correct, depending on what is meant by "the whole work". There are licenses considered by the FSF to be compatible with the GNU GPL.
The question was about a non-free program/library + a GPLed program/library; so in this case the whole work must be under the GPL. This was what the OP asked about, not about mixing the GPLed code with a GPL compatible license.
To be absolutely sure about licensing matters, it's always best to ask the people at the FSF who specialize in them.
Indeed!