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

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

Re: GPL traitor !


From: Hadron
Subject: Re: GPL traitor !
Date: Sat, 09 May 2009 18:01:23 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.110011 (No Gnus v0.11) Emacs/23.0.90 (gnu/linux)

Alan Mackenzie <address@hidden> writes:

> Evening, Erik!
>
> In gnu.misc.discuss Erik Funkenbusch <address@hidden> wrote:
>> On Sat, 09 May 2009 10:43:09 +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
>
>>>> Funny, but even YOU don't seem to understand the GPL that nobody could
>>>> possibly misunderstand.  Or maybe it's the FSF that doesn't understand
>>>> it.
>
>>> Or maybe you don't have a clue what "outside its scope" means.  The FSF
>>> is talking about the applicability of copyright law.  The contents of
>>> the GPL are not at issue here.
>
>> The GPL is useless without copyright law.  The two are entertwined.  You
>> cannot understand the GPL without understanding copyright law, thus the
>> "contents fo the GPL" includes copyright law, because the GPL is a
>> "derivitive work" of it.
>
> Right, now I'm beginning to see what you mean when you assert that the
> GPL is difficult to understand.  By the same argument, all copyright
> licenses are difficult to understand.

It's not what "Erik asserts". It's what anyone with an ounce of common
sense sees day in day out. This thread being yet another example of it.

To assert it's easy because you THINK you understand it fully is
bordering on the preposterous.

>
> However, the GPL is NOT tangled with copyright law.  It sits on top of
> it, or to one side of it, or whatever, but it is separate.  And no, you
> don't need to understand copyright law to understand the GPL, any more
> than you need to understand cell physiology to understand what an
> antibiotic does.
>

This is plainly bollox since the use of the GPL with other stuff is
clearly entangled,


> [ .... ]
>
>> I'm speaking about GPLv2.  v3 with all it's "conveyance" crap is even
>> worse, but I don't know it well enough to comment much on it.
>
> There seems to be a contradiction there.  Now would be an excellent
> time for you (Erik) to read the GPLv3 and get to know it.
>
>>>> You cannot understand the GPL without understanding the wider chaos of
>>>> copyright law.  That's why the GPL is not easy to understand.
>
>>> Since that applies to any license, it's disingenuous to blame the GPL
>>> for that specifically.
>
>> I'm not.  I'm blaming the people that say it's impossible to
>> misunderstand the GPL.
>
> You might be referring to me, here.  If so, let me correct the false
> impression you've got.  I haven't said it's impossible to misunderstand
> the GPL - clearly, going by this thread, it's very possible to
> misunderstand, particularly by people who put enough effort into it.

You don't have to put effort into misunderstanding the GPL.

>
> What I said was the GPL is easy to understand, which is true, but that

No it isn't.

> assumes a normally intelligent person prepared to spend the time to read
> read the GPL attentively.

So now you have to study it attentively and spend lots of time?

OK.

So its NOT "easy to understand".

Thanks for that confirmation.


-- 
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]