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

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

Re: [LMAO] El Reg: "GPLv2 - copyright code or contract?"


From: Alan Mackenzie
Subject: Re: [LMAO] El Reg: "GPLv2 - copyright code or contract?"
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 18:44:42 +0000 (UTC)
User-agent: tin/1.6.2-20030910 ("Pabbay") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/4.11-RELEASE (i386))

In gnu.misc.discuss Hadron <address@hidden> wrote:
> Alan Mackenzie <address@hidden> writes:

>> In gnu.misc.discuss Alexander Terekhov <address@hidden> wrote:

>>> Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>> Software writers of good faith have no difficulty at all with the GPL.

>>> Who appointed you to talk for "software writers of good faith", Alan?

>> Don't be silly.  One doesn't need to be elected to state plain facts.

>> I am myself a software writer of good faith, and I know lots of others,
>> and none of us has the slightest difficulty with the GPL.  You are not
>> a software writer at all, as far as I can remember, so you're not in a
>> position to dispute this.

> If "slightest difficulty" means you don't really care the fine. But to
> try and maintain it's clear and easy is somewhat disingenuous on your
> part. It should be abbundantly apparent to anyone who follows thread
> about the GPL that it's not "easy" and "totally clear" at all.

I care a very great deal about the GPL, the license I hack under.  It is
a model of clear writing.  This is not to be conflated with the copyright
law in various jurisdictions, which can be confusing and complicated
indeed.

It isn't difficult to spread FUD about the GPL, particularly to those who
don't trouble themselves to read it.  Those who create this FUD in this
mailing list are, with one exception, anonymous, and it is thus impossible
to establish their credentials, motivations, who (if anybody) pays them
to spread the FUD, etc.  The exception who isn't anonymous stated some
while ago that attacking the GPL was his "hobby".

Those who maintain the GPL is not clear, and are fluent readers of
English, are either being disingenuous or dishonest themselves, or are of
somewhat limited intellectual capacity.

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).



reply via email to

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