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: Hadron
Subject: Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 15:59:31 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.110011 (No Gnus v0.11) Emacs/23.0.90 (gnu/linux)

Rjack <address@hidden> writes:

> 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 :)
>

Are you two guys still arguing? Peter Koehlmann said it was all
ridiculously simple and even a retard could understand it or words to
that affect.

-- 
In view of all the deadly computer viruses that have been spreading
lately, Weekend Update would like to remind you: when you link up to
another computer, you’re linking up to every computer that that
computer has ever linked up to. — Dennis Miller


reply via email to

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