Title: Deleted redundant paragraph and added comment/suggestion
Two paragraphs following each other with almost identical content. Probably a minor copy editing oversight. (sorry for creating this clone in here, I assumed it would be elsewhere, feel free to delete this cloned repo after the merge)
Under review
1 reviewer
git pull https://k.copyleft.org/guide-hugoroy master
2015-01-22 20:31:05
Hugo Roy (hugoroy)
hugo@fsfe.org
Git pull requests don't support updates yet.
Pull Request Reviewers
  • Bradley Kuhn (bkuhn)
2 comments (1 inline, 1 general)
Showing 1 commit
1 2015-04-03 01:57:03
hugoroy
d1962968b668 master
deleted redundant paragraph and added suggestion/comment
Common ancestor: 26def8538a10
1 file changed with 9 insertions and 6 deletions:
↑ Collapse Diff ↑
gpl-lgpl.tex | master master
...
 
@@ -1662,12 +1662,6 @@ of the GPL are upheld, goes far above and beyond the permissions that one
1662 1662
 
would get with a typical work not covered by a copyleft license.  Thus, to
1663 1663
 
say that this condition is any way unreasonable is simply ludicrous.
1664 1664
 

	
1665
 
The GPL  recognizes what is outside its scope.  When a programmer's work is
1666
 
``separate and independent'' from any GPL'd program code with which it could be
1667
 
combined, then the obligations of copyleft do not extend to the work
1668
 
separately distributed.  Thus, Far from attempting to extend copyleft beyond the
1669
 
scope of copyright, the licenses explicitly recognize.
1670
 

	
1671 1665
 
Thus, GPL recognizes what is outside its scope.  When a programmer's work is
1672 1666
 
``separate and independent'' from any GPL'd program code with which it could
1673 1667
 
be combined, then copyleft obligations do not extend to the independent work
...
 
@@ -1675,6 +1669,15 @@ separately distributed.  Thus, far from attempting to extend copyleft beyond
1675 1669
 
the scope of copyright, GPL explicitly limits the scope of copyleft to the
1676 1670
 
scope of copyright.
1677 1671
 

	
1672
 
% Comment: The above is only true to the extent that the independent work is
1673
 
% not also combined as part of a whole based on the GPL'd program, because in
1674
 
% such case, the licensor needs to "extend" the GPL terms to the whole,
1675
 
% including the independent work "regardless of who wrote it".
1676
 
% 
1677
 
% I think the paragraph could thus benefit in clarity by not mentioning the
1678
 
% "limits the scope of copyleft to the scope of copyright" here (but that may
1679
 
% have to be with the fact I disagree with this statement in general 😉 
1680
 

	
1678 1681
 
GPL does not, however (as is sometimes suggested) distinguish ``dynamic''
1679 1682
 
from ``static'' linking of program code.  It is occasionally suggested that a
1680 1683
 
subroutine ``dynamically'' linked to GPL'd code is, by virtue of the linking
Stephen Compall (S11001001)
2 years and 4 months ago on pull request "Deleted redundant paragraph and added comment/suggestion"
Under the conditions you mention, the work is no longer "separate and independent". So the case you describe is already excluded by that qualification in the text. Regardless, this Comment block should not be part of this PR.
Hugo Roy (hugoroy)
2 years and 7 months ago on pull request "Deleted redundant paragraph and added comment/suggestion"

Status change: Under review

Auto status change to Under Review
2 comments (1 inline, 1 general)