Re: Is the GPL all encompassing?

[Rahul Dhesi]

"amicus_curious" <ACDC@sti.net> writes:

...
>> Since you were defending the MIT license and criticizing the GPL
>> license, let me ask you this:
>>
>> These "how-to" web sites, including Microsoft's alleged gigabytes of
>> tutorials -- do they use the MIT license, thus allowing you to freely
>> republish their content freely?
>>
>> If not, then I fail to see your point.

>I don't think they use any license at all.  I have no desire to republish 
>their content either.  I am only interested in learning how do do various 
>things with .NET in this particular case.  These articles serve to show the 
>way, nothing more.

I think you are wandering around aimlessly here. You were claiming that
the GPL provides nothing that the MIT license does. I asked you if you
wanted to benfit from the work of others without giving back anything in
return (which the MIT license lets you do). You suddently switched
tracks and brought into the discussion how-to web and Microsoft web
sites containing alleged gigabytes of tutorials. This would make sense
if these how-to sites used the MIT license.  But apparently they don't
use any license at all, according to you.  This would make them public
domain.

I think you are completely confused about what you want to say.
Sometimes you advocate the MIT license. Other times you seem to advocate
no license at all, i.e., public domain works.  And yet, the web sites
you mention do not provide public domain information -- I know Microsoft
does not.

It's hard to argue with, or hit, a target that not only moves, but moves
randomly and aimlessly and seems to have no substance at all.
-- 
Rahul
http://rahul.rahul.net/