Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean

[JEDIDIAH]

On 2009-04-06, Rjack <user@example.net> wrote:
> 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.

   Nice self-nuke on your part there...

   You either have a legal contract or you are tresspassing.

-- 
     This is a consumer product.                                      |||
     World domination simply isn't necessary.                        / | \