Re: GPL is like a cancer

[Rahul Dhesi]

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?

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

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"?
-- 
Rahul
http://rahul.rahul.net/