[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-licensing
Subject:    Re: [knghtbrd@debian.org: QPL v0.92+knghtbrd1]
From:       Raul Miller <rdm () test ! legislate ! com>
Date:       1998-12-30 4:28:43
[Download RAW message or body]

Andreas Pour <pour@mieterra.com> wrote:
> > > > > And the GPL zealots claim nothing is compatible, ...

> > > If I thought it would do any good I could point to the multiple places
> > > you and others have made this claim (you most recently not even a few
> > > weeks ago on this list), but anyone paying attention to these matters
> > > already knows this.

Raul Miller:
> > I made no such claim.

Andreas Pour then quotes:
> OK, from Message ID <19981213194312.X484@test.legi-slate.com>:
> > Andreas Pour <pour@mieterra.com> wrote:
> > > You have missed the point: what does it mean to say "under the GPL"?
> > > Gee, I guess every time I ask, what does it mean to say "under the
> > > GPL", and give a reasoned analysis of what I think it means, you
> > > will respond, it means "under the GPL". Well, I have already stated
> > > multiple times what I think the three options are for interpreting
> > > this, the response above is tautological and vacuous.
> >
> > The specific language is:
> >
> >     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.
> >
> > This has to mean that all of the terms of the GPL are present in
> > the license which makes the work available to all third parties.
> >
> > If you disagree there's no point in discussing the matter: this
> > is a legal document, it's a simple phrase, get a legal interpretation
> > of what that phrase means.

Fallacy of Division
[http://www.fvcc.cc.mt.us/depts/mis/lf/misctext/logic.txt]

Your statement (which you've ascribed to me) is that no licenses are
compatible with the GPL.  My statement was that the license on a work
as a whole, which contains GPLed code, must be the GPL.


> And again from Message ID   <19981213184847.U484@test.legi-slate.com>:
> 
> > Andreas Pour <pour@mieterra.com> wrote:
> > > I've not glossed over it, I have through detailed analysis concluded
> > > that the only "terms of this License" that apply to the complete
> > > source code are (a) distribute full source code to everything,
> > > including the X or Qt part (which but for that sentence you might not
> > > be obligated to do), and (b) do not charge for further redistribution,
> > > including of the X or Qt part (which otherwise might be able to do).
> >
> > But section 2 says that you have the right to modify the GPLed work
> > ("the program"), creating a work based on the program provided that
> > you release the word based on the program under the GPL (which, in the
> > context you create would also be called "the program").
> >
> > This contradicts your analysis: if your analysis is true you have
> > no right to modify the GPLed work and distribute the result.
> >
> > --
> > Raul

Here, you seem to be taking your premise as the conclusion -- which
is called a circular argument (CIRCULUS IN DEMONSTRANDO) on the page I
referenced above.

-- 
Raul

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]