[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: GPL traitor !

From: Hadron
Subject: Re: GPL traitor !
Date: Tue, 05 May 2009 08:49:34 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.110011 (No Gnus v0.11) Emacs/23.0.90 (gnu/linux)

Erik Funkenbusch <> writes:

> On Mon, 4 May 2009 16:22:08 +0000 (UTC), Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>> Day in day out the GPL is turned inside out. It's easy to CLAIM it's
>>> easy but fact does not bond with your fiction.
>> Huh?  The GPL is perfectly plain and straightforward and means what it
>> says.  You don't even need to get a lawyer to explain it to you, though
>> you certainly should consult one if you're going to be redistributing
>> GPL'd software.
>> The only people who "find" it difficult to understand are those who wish
>> to violate it and FUDsters who wish to propagate the unfounded notion
>> that nasty unforseen things can happen to people using or modifying GPL'd
>> software.
>> And please lose that nasty "CLAIM" word.
> The GPL is misunderstood on a daily basis by many people.  In fact, even
> GPL advocates can't seem to come to a consensus over what it means, so how
> is any "normal" person supposed to know?

Because the great Ian Hilliard'esque Alan McKenzie says you. Apparently
it's a piece of piss. 

> Here's an example.  Some GPL advocates believe that dynamic linking is not
> covered by the GPL, while others (including the FSF) believe it is.  
> Another example is XMLRPC (or SOAP or other similar technoloties) in which
> a function is called via network request on a distributed system.  Some
> believe that this is covered by the GPL, others believe it isn't.
> Many people think the GPL prevents you from charging money for GPL
> software, yet the FSF says they encourage you to do so.
> Many people think the GPL requires you to "give back" your changes to the
> author, but nothing could be further from the truth.  Even if you consider
> the GPL's software requirements to provide source to anyone you provide
> binaries that doesnt' require you to give that source to the upstream
> authors, only the downstream customers.
> So no, the GPL is *NOT* perfectly plain and straight forward.  And yes, you
> do need a lawyer to explain it to you, particulary when the issues of
> "derived work" are brought up, since the GPL does not define the term and
> relies on the accepted legal definition of the term, which is not as simple
> as it would seem.
> The only people who do *NOT* find the GPL difficult to understand are those
> thoat think they understand it when they really do not.

Sounds about right.

Alan can stamp his feet and rub his bears all he likes but the *facts*
are that people do NOT understand the GPL.

In view of all the deadly computer viruses that have been spreading
lately, Weekend Update would like to remind you: when you link up to
another computer, you’re linking up to every computer that that
computer has ever linked up to. — Dennis Miller

reply via email to

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