[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: Rjack
Subject: Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 10:08:24 -0400
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20090302)

Hadron wrote:
Rjack <> writes:

Alan Mackenzie wrote:
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.
You are not entitled to make up your own facts. Where have I ever
 claimed that GPL licensed code is "tantamount"to public domain
code? Please use Google and all the resources at your disposal to
 demonstrate that I have claimed such a thing.

I have long argued that users who rely on GPL licensed code have grounds for a contract claim of promissory estoppel.

Sincerely, Rjack :)

Are you two guys still arguing? Peter Koehlmann said it was all ridiculously simple and even a retard could understand it or words
to that affect.

I believe Alan Mackenzie changed the "retard" description to "normally
intelligent child".

We need to tread carefully here since there'll soon be charges and
counter charges of ad hominen attacks and generally unacceptable
social behaviors.

Rjack :)

reply via email to

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