[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 17:38:55 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.110011 (No Gnus v0.11) Emacs/23.0.90 (gnu/linux)

Doctor Smith <> writes:

> On Mon, 4 May 2009 23:51:39 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> 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?
>> 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.
> Just the fact that these GPL threads typically go on for many posts proves
> how convoluted the GPL really is to some people.
> It's no wonder corporations tend to run from it.

Which makes me ask why someone as clearly intelligent and coherent as
Alan seems to be blind to the fact that the GPL is NOT well
understood. It is VERY clear that MOST people don't "get it".

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]