Re: GPL is like a cancer

[Rjack]

Rahul Dhesi wrote:
> Rjack <user@example.net> writes:
>
> > The word "exclusive" means "only the owner" and *no one else* may
> >  "do" and "authorize". The word "authorize" is at the heart of
> > all copyright licenses. Because of this fact, BSD licensed code
> > forever remains under the BSD license unless the *owner* should
> > choose to "re-license" the code under another license.
>
> I see that you are now rehashing old arguments under a new subject 
> heading, having ended your previous flawed line of approach (i.e.,
> that illegality of GPL terms makes them unenforceable) by entering
> an infinite loop (i.e., that unenforceability of GPL makes them
> illegal).
>
> What's the authority for your claimed meaning for the word
> "exclusive"? Some renegade web site like answers.com?

It's your turn Rahul. I have already posted the legal authority that I
relied upon. Do you have any authority that says it doesn't mean what
I claimed it means? If so, by all means post it.

> On what basis are you denying copyright owners the right to
> delegate licensing authority to others?

I have already posted the legal authority that I relied upon. On what
basis are you granting copyright owners the right to delegate
licensing authority to others? Please post any legal authority that
you rely upon.

> And finally, why is it that any time somebody points out a serious
> flaw in your argument, you interpret it as an ad hominem attack?
> What's your meaning of "ad hominem" -- does it mean "finding a flaw
> in Rjack's arguments"?

There are no serious flaws in my arguments. Uh... I think you're a
teeny bit confused. Hard day at the office today Bunky?

Sincerely,
Rjack :)