🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Jan8.212126.21379@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>There's another question here: Suppose I write program A, with subroutine S in
>it.  I also write program B, also with subroutine S in it.  I don't release B
>at all, but either I put A under the GPL, or I release A into PD and someone
>else puts A under the GPL.
>
>Subroutine S is now in a GPL program.  Furthermore, subroutine S "infects"
>other code; anything with a copy of S in it is _also_ under the GPL.

Not true.  Derivative works of program B must be GPLed.  It's this
"infect" nonsense that's fooled you.  As the author of S, you may
release it under any terms you want.

>Now, I want to release B commercially.  But a rival company somehow manages to
>find out that B contains S.  They then tell me "B has a subroutine in it
>which was obviously taken from GPL program A.  Therefore, B is "infected" and
>falls under the GPL, so I can legally copy program B."

They are wrong.  They are suffering from the Zeleny delusion.  They
would be correct only if they found out that subroutine S, written by
ANOTHER offer and GPLed by him/her, was in the program.

>But wait, I protest.  I didn't get S from a GPL program.

It wouldn't matter if you had.  The important distinction is that S is
your work.  As it is your work, you may distribute it under any conditions
you please.  You always have unlimited rights to your own work unless you
sign away your ownership to someone else.





--
Joe Buck	jbuck@ohm.berkeley.edu