[OT} How to un-GPL parts of a GPL'd module.

[dsavitsk]

"Anton Vredegoor" <anton at vredegoor.doge.nl> wrote in message
news:anus7e$44r$1 at news.hccnet.nl...
> On Tue, 8 Oct 2002 09:03:44 -0400, "Steve Holden"
> <sholden at holdenweb.com> wrote:
>
> >"Anton Vredegoor" <anton at vredegoor.doge.nl> wrote in message
> >news:anujeq$qdk$1 at news.hccnet.nl...
> >

> >> there's always the possibility of the author being
> >> unwilling.
> >>
> >Indeed. Perhaps you should consider releasing your own code under the GPL
> >rather than some other license.

> That would solve the problem at the cost of passing on the problem to
> the next coder. It's this kind of "chain letter like" property that I
> want to adress.

Perhaps you should not be reading the GPL'd code in the first place.  The
GPL is a quid-pro-quo agreement.  You get insight into others code, and in
exchange you contine to pass on the knowledge.  If it seems unfair or
burdensome to benefit others in the same way you were benefited then keep
your eyes on your own paper.

> >> I know a lot of people rely on writing sourcecode for a living but I
> >> have been unemployed as a programmer for so long know that the concept
> >> of owning sourcecode or getting payed for producing it is completely
> >> alien to me. I think I'll be writing free sourcecode till I die just
> >> hoping some pieces of my code will survive into eternity. If someone
> >> has a problem with that, hire me.
> >>
> >Sort of like "send money or I'll shoot the dog"? Not a very promising
> >aproach to potential employers. I would encourage you to contact the
> >original author and see if you can't get permission to include the code
> >under license terms acceptable to you. Otherwise you'll need a clean room
> >implementation (which, if the algorithm is obvious, might be similar to
the
> >GPL'd code, but should be your own work rather than someone else's).
> >
>
> In case it's not clear, the chance of me finding an employer is
> remote.

:-(

> I don't agree with the "pass the
> problem to the next guy" property of the GPL.

Then don't read other's code.

> Since the dog metaphore
> was brought up, I would like to add the comparison of having a GPL dog
> using a specific tree for some known purpose and forbidding any other
> dog to use it for that same purpose ...

The metaphore makes no sense, or rather, is misplaced.  The better one might
be a dog saying that there is a tree in the woods where peeing is extra fun.
He will only tell you which one if you agree to tell the next dog under the
same conditions.  Thus, you can learn which tree for free, but you must pass
on the knowledge, OR you can pee on every damn tree until you find the fun
one.  Your calculus, as you are generally selfish at heart, should be based
on the number of trees and how quickly you can pee on them.  In this case,
you asked, and you can't give the knowledge back ... even if you make a
showing of peeing on every tree.

Your best out is probably if the code in question is generic and not
copyright-able.  From the length of the discussion this seems to not be the
case.  In the future, you should do less peeking to avaoid this problem.
This is particularly the case as this discussion is archived and will be dug
up if you are ever sued.

-d