🚀 go-pugleaf

mathew@mantis.co.uk (Lieutenant 030) writes:

>floyd@hayes.ims.alaska.edu (Floyd Davidson) writes:
>> In article <a54ueB50w164w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (Lieutenant 030) 
>> >Why, then, if I write a program including some GNU code, does the FSF
>> >tell me what I'm allowed to do with *my* code, not just with *its* code?
>> >Fine, the FSF can choose how its software is distributed.  I want to choose
>> >how mine is distributed.
>> 
>> How you distribute your code is not being restricted.

>False.  See below.

[...deleted...]

>> Why do you insist that you can choose not only how your code is
>> distributed, but also how code from the FSF is distributed?

>I don't.  I'll go through it slowly one more time for the hard of thinking.

Ok, I will do this the same way you do it.

>I have a program.  The code of the program is made up of a number
>of procedures and functions.  Most of these procedures and functions are
>written entirely by me.  A few of the procedures and functions were written
>entirely by the FSF.

[...deleted...]

>The question is:  why should my function bar(), written only by me, have
>to be distributed under the GPL just because it calls function foo()?
>Why can't I just say "the functions in this .c file are under the GPL;
>the functions in this .c file aren't"?

>Why do the FSF tell me how I can distribute my code?  Why can't they just
>tell me how to distribute their code?  After all, I'm not trying to tell
>them how they can distribute their code, am I?  So why are they doing that
>to me?

This is what FSF says (paraphrased):
You cannot distribute our code if it is included in a program which is
not protected by the GPL.  

This means that they are not interested in what you do with your code
as long as it does not contain any code covered by the GPL.  Fair
enough, it seems to me.


>mathew

Inge Wallin
ingwa@isy.liu.se
Dept. of EE
Linkoping University
Sweden