Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean

[Rjack]

JEDIDIAH wrote:
> On 2009-04-06, Rjack <user@example.net> 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:
> > > > >
> > > > > > "Free Software" is highly restrictive software and isn't
> > > > > >  "free" at all. Permissive licensed open source code such
> > > > > > as BSD licensed programs do not carry any baggage related
> > > > > > to being hauled into federal court by a band of wild-eyed
> > > > > >  zealots who practice socialism in software licensing as
> > > > > > a religion.
> > > The logical conclusion of your argument is that the GPL is 
> > > pointless.
> > The logical conclusion of *my* argument is don't use GPL licensed
> > code and you won't be hauled into federal court by a band of
> > wild-eyed zealots who practice socialism in software licensing as
> > a religion.
> >
> > > 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.
>
> Try the same thing with code from Microsoft, IBM or Sun and see 
> what happens.
>
> [deletia]
>
> The "burdens" of GPL software are no different than any other code
> that isn't public domain or effectively so.
>
> You're like a houseguest that thinks just because someone has 
> offered you their hospitality that you can start ripping up their 
> living room floor and carting it off.

GPL license offerers are much more akin to homeowners who are trying
to rip off their invited guests by tempting them to accept an illegal
contract.