🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <kp41dnINNr7m@network.ucsd.edu> mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes:
>	Suppose gnu.o is covered by the normal (GPL) license, say
>gnu.o is a part of emacs.
>
>Q1:	If I write matt.o and sell matt.o and gnu.o and gnu.c,
>        intending for them to be linked, must I provide matt.c?
>        Must I allow the recipient to in turn give away all of these
>	without giving anything to me?

I don't think so.  This sounds like it falls under the "mere aggregation"
clause to me.  The recipient must be allowed to give away gnu.*.

>Q2:	Repeat with GPL->LGPL.

Same result.

>Q3: 	Suppose, using the LGPL version of gnu.o, I provide in addition,
>        executable "matt" which is simply matt.o and gnu.o linked together
>	for a certain architecture.  Does anything change?  (I think it
>	stupid if this makes a difference, personally)

Nothing changes.  This is the primary difference between the GPL and the
LGPL.  According to the GPL, if you provide an executable derived from
copylefted code, it must be copylefted and the source must be made
available.  The LGPL permits you to link without having to free your part.

>Q4:	Now, suppose I write version 1 of Magic Frobozz Compiler-Compiler
>	Meta-Compiler Construction Kit Interpreter, and give it away
>	under the GNU GPL license.
>
>	A little while passes, and after a while I rewrite things to
>	be version 2, with some more enhancements, etc.  Am I allowed to
>	sell this version in software "hoarder" fashion 

Since this is your own code, you can change the licensing rules anytime you
want.  You chose to copyleft it, and you can choose to stop copylefting it.

>	In other words, does the GNU virus infect the
>	original owner?  

No.  The GNU virus results from the implicit agreement you make to the
license in the copyleft when you copy the software.  When you're the
author, there is no such license agreement between you and yourself, so you
are not bound to the terms.

>			 Does anything change, if I incorporate into V2,
>	improvments that the general public at large have sent in during their
>	use of V1.* ?

Yes.  V2 is now a derivative of the contributed code, and may be subject to
any licensing agreements you have with the authors.  If the contributed
code is copylefted, then this may carry over to V2.

>Q5:	Does GNU have a position on the subject of entertainment "software",
>	a.k.a. CD's and soon, digital video?  With the advent of cheap,
>	identical digital copying, is there any real difference between CD's
>	and computer programs?

GNU is an OS, so I don't think it has a "position" on anything; you mean
the FSF.

I don't know the FSF's official policy, or RMS's personal opinion, but
here's mine.  The difference between computer programs and music/video is
that part of computer programs' utility is their malleability.  Users can
build new programs out of old programs, in order to enhance them and fix
bugs.  The main reason for the GPL is to preserve hackers' rights to tweak
programs.  Computer programs also provide an opportunity for an after-sale
market, i.e. you can get ongoing income from customer support, etc.  In the
case of music, though, the recording is pretty much all there is to the
artist's work.  Copyright was created to promote artistic expression of
this sort, and it continues to serve that purpose well.
-- 
Barry Margolin, Thinking Machines Corp.

barmar@think.com
{uunet,harvard}!think!barmar