Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2002 10:34:10 +0200 From: Rahul Siddharthan <rsidd@online.fr> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: Greg Pavelcak <gpav@som.umass.edu>, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Use/Utilize Message-ID: <20020406083409.GB1901@lpt.ens.fr> In-Reply-To: <3CAE9E85.BDEDB76C@mindspring.com> References: <20020405183857.GA58446@oitunix.oit.umass.edu> <20020405231950.B63981@lpt.ens.fr> <3CAE3C62.4012DA04@mindspring.com> <20020406064529.GB1426@lpt.ens.fr> <3CAE9E85.BDEDB76C@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Terry Lambert said on Apr 5, 2002 at 23:06:45: > > In fact, if I follow Merriam-Webster's suggestions, I'd prefer to > > "use" the code in a run-of-the-mill derivative work (embedding a GPL'd > > FFT routine in a program of my own) but "utilize" the code in a novel > > application (utilize an FFT to do fast multiplications of large > > integers). > > I prefer OED. So do I, but I didn't have it handy and it's not available online. > However... > > Let's say everything you say is correct. Do you agree that > there is confusion in the GPL about whether or not derivative > works constitute "use" or "utilization" of the code? No, because "use" and "utilization" sound synonymous to me. The point is, is it use (or utilization) of the source code itself as part of another program (such as a modified version of gcc), or use (or utilization) of the program for its own purposes (producing a binary with gcc)? I think the GPL is pretty clear that it only applies to re-use of the source code, and that (for example) a binary produced by gcc is not covered by the GPL. > I think there is, and I think this confusion is intentional. Well, you've presumably talked to lawyers, and Stallman has talked to lawyers, and the FSF employs lawyers, so whether there is confusion or not may be resolved when it gets to court. But in his interpretations of the GPL in interviews, Stallman is quite clear about what he intends; linking, or mixing, of source code is bundled by the GPL, but "mere aggregation" or bundling -- say, on a CDROM -- is not, and binaries produced by GPL'd tools are not. > Surely, you must agree that the use of the word "free" is a > redefinition, right? No, but I agree it's ambiguous, and misleading, and probably deliberately so. Rahul To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020406083409.GB1901>