[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean

From: Alan Mackenzie
Subject: Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 13:28:27 +0000 (UTC)
User-agent: tin/1.6.2-20030910 ("Pabbay") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/4.11-RELEASE (i386))

In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack <> wrote:
> Thufir Hawat wrote:
>> On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 08:07:03 -0400, Rjack wrote:

>>> Thufir Hawat wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 12:35:51 -0400, Rjack wrote:

>> The logical conclusion of your argument is that the GPL is pointless.

>> And, since the BSD license is toothless, why even bother? Just 
>> license it the same way sqlite is licensed: public domain.  That's 
>> the conclusion which can be drawn from your argument.

> The conclusion that can be drawn from *my* argument is that using
> permissive licensed open source code such as BSD licensed programs
> will prevent someone from being hauled into federal court by a band of
> wild-eyed zealots who practice socialism in software licensing as a
> religion.

:-)  The GPL is really crystal clear; it isn't some tricky document with
hidden traps waiting to snap.  A normally intelligent child could
understand it.  If you conform to its requirements, which are few and
clear, you won't have any problem with "wild-eyed socialist zealots".  If
you don't like those requirements, use other code instead.

> If *you* wish to present *your* argument that open source code should
> be released as public domain then present it as *your* argument since
> is certainly not *my* argument.

It seems to be *your* argument, sustained by your own interpretation of
some judges' decisions, that licensing code under the GPL is tantamount
to making it public domain.

> Sincerely,
> Rjack :)

Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

reply via email to

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