Re: GNU licenses

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> > No. I simply see no problems with unilateral decisions to release
>> > something straight into the public domain in our modern civilization
>> > with IP market economy.
>> 
>> So behavior benefiting society and progress should become optional.
>
> Even utterly proprietary and closed software can benefiting
> society.

Sure, and so does war.  That does not mean that it is a good idea to
create circumstances where this is the case.

> And I certainly don't see any problems with availability of sources
> to study code and conveniently exercise right to modify/adapt under
> 17 USC 117. It doesn't need a license, it works with all rights
> reserved.

Uh, the source does not get available by magic.  It needs to be
explicitly provided before you can study and modify it.

> EPL/CPL is also fine (binaries need not be royalty free) as long as
> one needs binaries in order to execute. Another factor being that it
> is clear legalese and not moronic Stallmanese (which is only good
> for your crackpot theories regarding "whole combined works" being
> derivative works).

Look, the GPL explicitly states that the scope of derivative works is
defined by copyright law.  If you want to call copyright law a
"crackpot theory", you are free to do so, but that puts you actually
beyond Stallman with regard to radicality.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum