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

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

Re: GPL is like a cancer


From: Rjack
Subject: Re: GPL is like a cancer
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 16:27:25 -0400
User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302)

Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Rjack <address@hidden> writes:

The word "exclusive" means "only the owner" and *no one else* may
 "do" and "authorize". The word "authorize" is at the heart of
all copyright licenses. Because of this fact, BSD licensed code
forever remains under the BSD license unless the *owner* should
choose to "re-license" the code under another license.

I see that you are now rehashing old arguments under a new subject heading, having ended your previous flawed line of approach (i.e.,
that illegality of GPL terms makes them unenforceable) by entering
an infinite loop (i.e., that unenforceability of GPL makes them
illegal).

What's the authority for your claimed meaning for the word
"exclusive"? Some renegade web site like answers.com?

It's your turn Rahul. I have already posted the legal authority that I
relied upon. Do you have any authority that says it doesn't mean what
I claimed it means? If so, by all means post it.


On what basis are you denying copyright owners the right to
delegate licensing authority to others?

I have already posted the legal authority that I relied upon. On what
basis are you granting copyright owners the right to delegate
licensing authority to others? Please post any legal authority that
you rely upon.


And finally, why is it that any time somebody points out a serious
flaw in your argument, you interpret it as an ad hominem attack?
What's your meaning of "ad hominem" -- does it mean "finding a flaw
in Rjack's arguments"?

There are no serious flaws in my arguments. Uh... I think you're a
teeny bit confused. Hard day at the office today Bunky?

Sincerely,
Rjack :)






reply via email to

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