Re: GNU licenses

[David Kastrup]

"Alfred M. Szmidt" <ams@gnu.org> writes:

>    For example, if somebody combines a GPLed program and proprietary
>    stuff and distributes the combination to you, you can't spout "by
>    distributing the GPLed program, he explicitly accepted the
>    license, so I got this under the GPL and may redistribute as I
>    see fit."
>
> I can "spout" exactly that: Therefore, by modifying or distributing
> the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your
> acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and
> conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or
> works based on it.

Following your advice is as likely to land somebody in court as
following Terekhov's advice.

And you are spreading FUD, to boot.

> I'll cite you section 5 since you suffer from aixelsyd:
>
>   5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>      signed it.  However, nothing else grants you permission to
                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>      modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works.

"Grants you permission" is not the same as "make it possible".  It is
only the same as "make it legally possible".

Assuming that an upstream vendor would only do legal things does not
create legal facts.

And if he did something illegitimate, it is _not_ in the hands of
downstream to decide in what manner he will come into compliance.
This is the sole prerequisite of the copyright holder.

As long as you don't understand that and recommend to people that they
take the law in their own hands, you are a danger to people who would
be as stupid as to listen to your advice, just like Terekhov is.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum