gnu-misc-discuss
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: GNU License, Again


From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: GNU License, Again
Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 19:52:50 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1.50 (gnu/linux)

"Alfred M. Szmidt" <address@hidden> writes:

> Again you resort to petty personal attacks, how I kill text is
> completely irrelevant to the issue, I'm quite sure you are capable
> of following the thread.  You also on purpose confuse _goal_ with
> what actually happens.

I am in good company, since Richard is quite explicit that the goals
of the GPL and its effects correspond (which is why he calls it a
pragmatic license).  Again,
cf. <URL:http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/pragmatic.html> for his
words on that:

    If you want to accomplish something in the world, idealism is not
    enough--you need to choose a method that works to achieve the
    goal. In other words, you need to be ``pragmatic.'' Is the GPL
    pragmatic? Let's look at its results.

    Consider GNU C++. Why do we have a free C++ compiler? Only because
    the GNU GPL said it had to be free. GNU C++ was developed by an
    industry consortium, MCC, starting from the GNU C compiler. MCC
    normally makes its work as proprietary as can be. But they made
    the C++ front end free software, because the GNU GPL said that was
    the only way they could release it. The C++ front end included
    many new files, but since they were meant to be linked with GCC,
    the GPL did apply to them. The benefit to our community is
    evident.

So Richard talks explicitly about the _goal_ of the GPL, and he does
this immediately before listing a number of projects that set out to
create proprietary projects, and then were forced by their use of
GPLed software to license them under the GPL.

That you apparently consider his words on that matter irrelevant (why
else would you neither quote nor comment them even when I cite them to
you?) when compared to your own, I find somewhat disrespectful.  After
all, it was Richard and not you who actually wrote the license.

And so for the intent _behind_ the GPL I consider Richard's words
quite more relevant than yours, even though your personal intent when
_using_ the GPL as a license might be different in some cases.

How about actually _explaining_ some of Richard's words in the context
of what you claim they are supposed to mean instead of just
monotonously accusing me of purported ad hominem attacks and striking
everything substantial when replying?

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]