On 2009-04-06, amicus_curious <ACDC@sti.net> wrote:
"JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message
news:slrngtkmgi.vvv.jedi@nomad.mishnet...
GPL license offerers are much more akin to homeowners who are trying
to rip off their invited guests by tempting them to accept an illegal
contract.
Nice self-nuke on your part there...
You either have a legal contract or you are tresspassing.
I don't think that you understood the analogy. Let me put it in what might
be a more understandable form. Say you go to Chicago for the Open Source
Expo and you and your buddies, being new to the big city, are wandering up
State Street and get enticed into a titty bar. Then some sweet honeys cozy
up to you and ask you to buy them a drink. "Sure!", you say, flattered by
such attention. Then later you find that the tab for the girls' drinks are
not what you expected and are some $50 apiece. "Pay up or we will call the
cops!" is what you are told.
Now that is more akin to the way that unsophisticates are lured into using
the "free" GPL code and then are hammered for their birthright by the SFLC.
"Ignorance is no excuse!", they say, "What's yours is now ours, you have
been touched!"
...except the GPL is very plain and out in the open.
The intent of RMS is very clear and rather blunt.
The only way you can "misunderstand" anything is if it were
your original intent to try and "take advantage" to begin with.
The terms are by no stretch of the imagination hidden.
Neither is the intent of the proprietor.