[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Is the GPL all encompassing?

From: amicus_curious
Subject: Re: Is the GPL all encompassing?
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 14:06:56 -0400

"Hyman Rosen" <> wrote in message news:zPuCk.1506$
amicus_curious wrote:
Has anyone ever tried to do that?  I cannot find any such case.

Well, they're either obeying the license and then the whole
project is under the GPL, or they're stealing and therefore
keeping it secret. So it's hard to say one way or the other.

The Busy Box stuff seems to be a silly egomaniac effort to get casual users to pay some homage to the author

The authors licensed their code in a specific way. Your ad
hominem attacks against their character notwithstanding,
people who wish to copy and distribute that code may do so
only according to that license. Additionally, your
characterization of, for example, router manufacturers as
"casual users" is ludicrous.

I don't think that you have a correct understanding of "ad hominem" here. If I said that your arguments were nonsense because you are an uneducated fool and in the pay of the FSF, that would be ad hominem. If I say that Richard Stallman is a fat, unkempt fool whose very appearance is repugnant, that would just be derision or disparagement. Saying the Busy Box authors are egomaniacs is just belittling and I would continue to say that they do deserve the label. The FSF in the guise of Moglen and some others are just picking nits in safe areas where there is really no issue or any effective resistance. Of late, the only resistance offered was by Verizon who were freely given a dismissal with predjudice which, in effect, is a license to distribute the busy box code without bothering with the source distribution although I am sure they don't care to do so anyway. Verizon, like Davy Crockett before them, just "grinned them down" and they ran off to find someone else to play with.

You would have to connect up your statement as to how ludicrous "casual users" could be and why.

spending a lot of time and money to just look foolish

Since each action has resulted in GPL violations being repaired,
I reject the notion that they look foolish. Whether or not these
actions cost them money depends on the private details of the
settlements they reach, to which neither you nor I are privy.

it is also easily avoided and not necessary for any situation

By all means, people who do not wish to honor the license should
be encouraged to avoid using the software.

A little short sighted there, I think. The objective of the open source community is to get everyone using the same thing and periodically improving on it in order to make progress. Denying someone the opportunity to make progress due to their unwillingness to fully disclose the improvement robs those who could benefit beyond the improver's fees of the differential benefit to be obtained. That is "throwing the baby out with the bath water" in terms of folk lore and generally considered to be a mistake. I don't know why you would advocate such nonsense.

reply via email to

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