Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed

[Rjack]

Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack <user@example.net> wrote:
> > Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>
> > > Oh, here we go again.  That's FUD, Rjack.  You're well aware 
> > > that that only applies when the other decides to license his 
> > > code under the GPL, possibly as a consequence of his (free) 
> > > decision to incorporate some GPL code into his program.
>
> > You and thousands of GNUtians are SORELY confused if you truly 
> > believe that an illegal contract (defined as one against "public
> >  policy") becomes a legally enforceable contract just because 
> > someone freely accepts the contract terms. Nothing could be 
> > farther from the truth.
>
> Rjack, I absolutely refuse to entertain this sophistry yet one more
>  time.  It's already been discussed to death on this mailing list.
>
> Yet again: anybody is free to license his code with the GPL or any
>  other license of his choice.  If he wishes to incorporate existing
>  GPL licensed code into his own program, then he must also license
>  his program under the GPL. That is the full extent of the alleged
>  "compulsion" you refer to.

Alan, I absolutely refuse to entertain this sophistry yet one more
time. It's already been discussed to death on this mailing list.

Why not whip out your Oxford English Dictionary and look up the
meaning of "must" as in "then he must also license his program under
the GPL".

> Now, why don't you consider why so much software is licensed under
>  the GPL of whichever version.

Never underestimate the gullibility of the American public.

> You know, there might just be a reason.

You know, there might just not be a
reason.

> Exercise your mental faculties, and see what hypothes[ie]s you can 
> come up with.

I'll leave that to you Alan. Thanks anyway. I've got to hop over to
Groklaw and trash somebody behind their back.

Sincerely,
Rjack