[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: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 06:52:40 -0400
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20090302)

Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Happy pagan fertility rite, RJack!

. . . whining . . .
. . . more whining . . .

Its enforceability is a sensible default assumption. The GPL was put together by a competent lawyer,

I didn't know Richard Stallman was a lawyer. Was that pseudo-fact also
a default assumption?

is perfectly clear in what it says, is perfectly reasonable in what
it says, has so far stood the test of time, and has been ruled valid by judges whenever it has been challenged in court.

The GPL has never been interpreted by a U.S. court.

Your arguments, on the other hand, as much as I can make them out, seem based on arcane interpretations of USA law, sometimes citing cases going back the best part of a century judged in social conditions which simply don't exist any more. They also seem based
 on the notion that absolute logical consistency holds in law.

So put your argument up on a web site, and leave some room here for
 people to talk about something interesting.

As long as the Free Software Foundation claims enforceability under
U.S. law and harasses folks through bogus lawsuits, I shall counter
their attempts at socialist propaganda. Countless blogs mindlessly
repeat their fiction and this demands correction. Rulings in non-U.S.
jurisdictions are irrelevant to me as I have explicitly disclaimed
knowledge of non-U.S. law.

You Marxist folks may wallow in Stallman's socialism all you wish. I
don't expect you to grasp or follow U.S. law. Dogs don't do nuclear
physics and socialists don't do capitalism. If you don't like or
understand the arguments I present, then by all means use your
kill-filter to raise your comfort level.

Rjack :)

reply via email to

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