Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean

[JEDIDIAH]

On 2009-04-06, Rjack <user@example.net> 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:
>>>> 
>>>>> "Free Software" is highly restrictive software and isn't 
>>>>> "free" at all. Permissive licensed open source code such as 
>>>>> BSD licensed programs do not carry any baggage related to 
>>>>> being hauled into federal court by a band of wild-eyed 
>>>>> zealots who practice socialism in software licensing as a 
>>>>> religion.
>
>> The logical conclusion of your argument is that the GPL is 
>> pointless.
>
> The logical conclusion of *my* argument is don't use GPL licensed code
> and you won't be hauled into federal court by a band of wild-eyed
> zealots who practice socialism in software licensing as a religion.
>
>> 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.

   Try the same thing with code from Microsoft, IBM or Sun and see
what happens.

[deletia]

   The "burdens" of GPL software are no different than any other
code that isn't public domain or effectively so.

   You're like a houseguest that thinks just because someone has
offered you their hospitality that you can start ripping up their
living room floor and carting it off.

-- 
        The best OS in the world is ultimately useless         |||
        if it is controlled by a Tramiel, Jobs or Gates.      / | \