[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Is the GPL all encompassing?

From: Rjack
Subject: Re: Is the GPL all encompassing?
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 19:55:41 -0500
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20080708)

Rahul Dhesi wrote:
"amicus_curious" <> writes:

Since you were defending the MIT license and criticizing the
GPL license, let me ask you this:

These "how-to" web sites, including Microsoft's alleged
gigabytes of tutorials -- do they use the MIT license, thus
allowing you to freely republish their content freely?

If not, then I fail to see your point.

I don't think they use any license at all.  I have no desire to
republish their content either.  I am only interested in
learning how do do various things with .NET in this particular
case.  These articles serve to show the way, nothing more.

I think you are wandering around aimlessly here. You were
claiming that the GPL provides nothing that the MIT license does.
I asked you if you wanted to benfit from the work of others
without giving back anything in return (which the MIT license
lets you do). You suddently switched tracks and brought into the
discussion how-to web and Microsoft web sites containing alleged
gigabytes of tutorials. This would make sense if these how-to
sites used the MIT license.  But apparently they don't use any
license at all, according to you. This would make them public domain.

I think you are completely confused about what you want to say. Sometimes you advocate the MIT license. Other times you seem to
advocate no license at all, i.e., public domain works.  And yet,
the web sites you mention do not provide public domain
information -- I know Microsoft does not.

It's hard to argue with, or hit, a target that not only moves,
but moves randomly and aimlessly and seems to have no substance
at all.

I asked you if you wanted to benfit from the work of others without giving back anything in return (which the MIT license
lets you do).

One intent of copyright law is that original authors may benefit
from their exclusive copyrights if they wish or freely gift their
work if they so desire.

Some like BSD and MIT licensors are truly charitable and freely
offer the public the fruits of their work for the greater good of

Some are greedy, like Microsoft, and so license their work for all
the money they can squeeze from others.

Some are thieves, like GPL licensors, who for the political goal of
destroying capitalism, try to steal other peoples' rights with an
illegal licensing scheme.

Rjack :)

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]