[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Matt Assay Tells the Truth

From: Rjack
Subject: Re: Matt Assay Tells the Truth
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 18:28:22 -0500
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20081209)

Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
explain to them that their definition of "freedom" is wrong.

The FSF explains at length what they mean by free software. It is
 spelled out clearly in the GPL as well. The only people
adversely affected by restrictions on what may be done with free
software are developers who wish to restrict the freedom of their
users. Those people would not be any happier if free software
were named something else. It is no different than freedom of
speech being surrounded by a web of restrictions concerning
slander, libel, obscenity, or national emergency. Reasonable
people understand.

People who resort to dictionary definitions in the belief that this makes a cogent point are to be pitied.

Thanks for the empathy Hymen. I try to stick to the ordinary
meanings assigned to words. I'm sure redefining words as you wish is
very convenient -- just as the FSF attempts to redefine copyright
law to suit their socialist agenda.

You never lose do you Hymen? You just mooooooove the goalposts.

Perhaps after they change their definition to suit Stallman's philosophy you'll have a better chance of making all of us ardent socialists.

No one is trying to make you be anything.

I'll believe that when the SFLC stops filing bogus lawsuits.

No one is forcing you to develop software, and if you do develop software, no one is forcing you to adopt a particular license. The GPL creates a community of code developed by people who share the belief that users should have the freedom to run, read, modify, and share software. That code may be incorporated into other software only if that other software is under the same license. Simply choose not to do so if that is what you wish. The
 GPL community will happily ignore you, and you may happily
ignore them.

My God! However did society ever manage before Stallman came along? We're so grateful he's saving us from ourselves.

Do you really find it so peculiar and upsetting that some people have different points of view than you do? You must live a very insular existence.

What happened to your self-serving, pious "ad hominem" lamentation?

Except file bogus lawsuits in attempts to intimidate folks into
 believing the GPL is an enforceable legal contract.

And successful ones at that. Even assuming that your arguments about the GPL not being enforceable are correct, which they are not,

Put your money where your mouth is and use legal argumentation and
authority instead of empty rhetoric -- for instance it would only
take one example of a federal court ruling (that's where the rubber
meets the road) that a copyright license is not a contract. *That*
would remove the wind from my sails. The FSF has had years to back
up their legal claim that a "license is not a contract" but the only
thing the software world has ever seen is self-serving bullshit.

the GPL clearly expresses the intent of the developers who use it. Why are we to feel sympathy for people who disregard this intent?

Good question since the GPL is clearly illegal and unenforcable.

Upset? I don't have to file bogus copyright lawsuits to concisely express my views. That fact leaves me at peace.

After each suit filed by the SFLC, the GPLed software was made properly available by the defendants or their agents.

Except that Verizon told the SFLC to kiss their royal purple ass.

That leaves me at peace. Good. I'm glad we're both happy.

Rjack :)

-- "Whether express or implied, a license is a contract 'governed
by ordinary principles of state contract law.'"; McCoy v.
Mitsuboshi Cutlery, Inc., 67. F.3d 917, (United States Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit 1995) --

-- "Although the United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C.  101-
1332, grants exclusive jurisdiction for infringement claims to the
federal courts, those courts construe copyrights as contracts and
turn to the relevant state law to interpret them."; Automation by
Design, Inc. v. Raybestos Products Co., 463 F.3d 749, (United
States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 2006) --

reply via email to

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