Re: GNU License, Again

[David Kastrup]

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

>    So the GNU GPL has been written by a goal different from the goals
>    of the GNU project and the FSF.  Fascinating.
>
> The GNU GPL is a legal document, it cannot insist on everything.
>
>        Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you
>        have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge
>        for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can
>        get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use
>        pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can do
>                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>        these things.
>
>    How can "new free programs" be meant to refer only to "existing
>    free programs"?
>
> David, reread that sentence, it talks about using the GNU GPL in other
> free software programs.

So "new" = "other" and "existing" in your book.  Fascinating.

> It is about compatibility with other free licenses.  Say the
> Modified BSD license.

Except that pieces of GPLed programs _can't_ be used in programs
licensed under a different license.

>    That one can't see your writings about the GPL's goals coincide
>    at all with the statements in the GPL itself, in the FSF's
>    publications and in Stallman's articles about them as well as
>    with the opinions of other GNU maintainers and developers, does
>    not constitute any of those things you are lavishly labelling
>    people with.
>
> They coincide with the statements of GPL, the FSF, the GNU project
> and of RMS.  You are simply misreading things on purpose, this is
> not a new side from you.

And again, everything that you can muster is flat denial without even
an attempt at justifying your outlandish interpretations, and ad
hominem attacks.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum