Re: GNU License, Again

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   >>  You can reduce it to a semantic debate. But in the end the GPL
   >>  is structured so that the only legal way for you to
   >>  redistribute modified copies of GPL licensed code is to license
   >>  the modifications under the GPL.

   >There are several ways to come into compliance, this is one of
   >them.  Requesting the copyright holder to change the license is
   >another.  And a third is simply not using the GPL program.

   Mike wants to understand why the GPL is structured to have such
   compliance. I've seen your posts that states to go read this document
   and that document. I'd like to hear your summary of why the GPL is
   structured so that the easiest avenue to be in compliance with the
   license is to release modifications under the GPL. Why is the GPL
   structured so that GPL and non compatible GPL components cannot be
   combined into a distributable combined work?

Because that would make the user give up their freedom, they can no
longer use the combined (I assume you do not mean aggregated, but a
deriviate) work, since it is not free anymore.

   I've given my take on why. I'd like to hear yours, or your
   interpretation of others' take on the subject as to why.

I have tried to give my interpretation, maybe if you could tell me
what you find unclear about it then I can make it clearer.