Rchard Stallman vs Darl McBride

Levi Pearson levipearson at gmail.com
Tue Jul 20 20:50:43 MDT 2010

On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 8:34 PM, Jon Jensen <jon at endpoint.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jul 2010, Tod Hansmann wrote:
>> You can't release part of a project under GPL, and if you do release it
>> under GPL, you give up the right to keep some of your code to yourself.
>> At least, I believe that's what he's saying.
> There is nothing in the GPL that says you must distribute any code you
> write that is derivative of GPL'd code, if you don't distribute it.
> If you distribute code derivative of GPL'd code, then it must be licensed
> under the GPL. But you don't have to distribute it.

This is true, though you might make the GPL software's authors mad if
they find out about it.  I was assuming that we were talking about
code that was to be distributed, since otherwise you don't have to
license your code at all.

> This is all just a reflection of the fact that under current copyright
> law, all creative works are presumed copyrighted by their creator by
> default, and the only thing that makes it legal for another party to copy
> the copyrighted work (except for fair use etc.) is permission, whether
> through a stock license like the GPL, or personal permission.

Yes, but you can license your software to grant permission to use,
copy, modify, and redistribute it without preaching to people about
rights and freedoms and whatnot, and without forcing them to open any
software they might link with yours.


More information about the PLUG mailing list