[Top][All Lists]

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

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

From: Rjack
Subject: Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!"
Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2009 06:58:00 -0500
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20081209)

Andrew Halliwell wrote:
Hyman Rosen <> 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.

Rjack :)

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

reply via email to

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