Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!"

[Rjack]

Andrew Halliwell wrote:
> Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> wrote:
> > Rjack wrote:
> > > falsely convincing innocent programmers that the GPL
> > > license can steal their exclusive rights granted to
> > > them by under 17 USC 106.
> > What in the world are you talking about? How can a license
> > steal anything? The only way anyone's work falls under the
> > GPL is if they voluntarily place it under the GPL.
> >
> > You seem very confused.
>
> That's the old microsoft "linux is a cancer" fud they tried pushing a few
> years ago, where they tried to convince people that if you used open source
> software all your software would need to be opened too.

Nope. It's gospel truth like the saying "all license are contracts"
that is put out to educate people concerning copyright licensing.

Sincerely,
Rjack :)

-- The S.F.L.C. will NEVER, NEVER willingly allow the GPL to be 
interpreted on its merits by a federal court. --