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

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

Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean


From: Rjack
Subject: Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 09:53:23 -0400
User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302)

Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack <address@hidden> wrote:
Thufir Hawat wrote:
On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 08:07:03 -0400, Rjack wrote:

Thufir Hawat wrote:
On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 12:35:51 -0400, Rjack wrote:

The logical conclusion of your argument is that the GPL is pointless.

And, since the BSD license is toothless, why even bother? Just license it the same way sqlite is licensed: public domain. That's the conclusion which can be drawn from your argument.

The conclusion that can be drawn from *my* argument is that using
permissive licensed open source code such as BSD licensed programs will prevent someone from being hauled into federal court by a band of wild-eyed zealots who practice socialism in software licensing as a religion.

:-)  The GPL is really crystal clear; it isn't some tricky document
with hidden traps waiting to snap. A normally intelligent child could understand it. If you conform to its requirements, which are
 few and clear, you won't have any problem with "wild-eyed
socialist zealots".  If you don't like those requirements, use
other code instead.

If *you* wish to present *your* argument that open source code should be released as public domain then present it as *your* argument since is certainly not *my* argument.

It seems to be *your* argument, sustained by your own interpretation of some judges' decisions, that licensing code under
 the GPL is tantamount to making it public domain.

You are not entitled to make up your own facts. Where have I ever
claimed that GPL licensed code is "tantamount"to public domain code?
Please use Google and all the resources at your disposal to
demonstrate that I have claimed such a thing.

I have long argued that users who rely on GPL licensed code have
grounds for a contract claim of promissory estoppel.

Sincerely,
Rjack :)


reply via email to

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