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

[Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters]

"Mark McEahern" <marklists at mceahern.com> wrote previously:
|This is not quite the same thing.  When you're done taking the watch, it's
|no longer there for anyone else to enjoy.  Not so in the case of
|intellectual property.

I feel compelled to respond.  Mostly just because I fear that Gustavo's
other post following this vaguely insinuates I would be sympathetic with
the BSA (they're a bunch of evil bastards who act like thugs).

Moreover, I do know that "IP" is different than physical object in
respect to cost of reproduction.  And that actual difference ought to be
recognized and embraced in law rather than having the distinction denied
and obfuscated in ideology and law.

My silly little parody was just trying to point to a case of
-permission- (or lack thereof) where no one would even think to ask for
help with circumvention.  Whatever differences there are between a watch
and some GPL code, they have in common that the owner doesn't authorize
me to use their thing except under certain (reasonable) restrictions.
My hypothetical jewler puts the condition on the watch that I have to
pay a certain amount of money before I can have it... he doesn't have
to, it's well in his rights to give it to me, or to reduce the price,
but that's what he does.  Likewise, the author of the GPL code decides
to require compliance with the GPL is a condition for redistribution of
derived works.  Maybe she'll change her mind if asked, but that's what
she has stated for now.  I don't *need* to have the watch, and I don't
*need* to use someone else's codebase.... if I want to, I'll pay the
price.

Yours, Lulu...

--
Keeping medicines from the bloodstreams of the sick; food from the bellies of
the hungry; books from the hands of the uneducated; technology from the
underdeveloped; and putting advocates of freedom in prisons.  Intellectual
property is to the 21st century what the slave trade was to the 16th.