[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: GPL traitor !

From: Erik Funkenbusch
Subject: Re: GPL traitor !
Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 11:13:53 -0500
User-agent: 40tude_Dialog/

On Tue, 5 May 2009 07:13:19 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> After takin' a swig o' grog, Erik Funkenbusch belched out
>   this bit o' wisdom:
>> 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.
>> 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.
> Nice summary of standard legal procedure, corner cases, and descriptions of
> uninformed people.
> You know, the tip-of-the-iceberg stuff that people focus on for purposes of
> FUD, while the vast majority /depend/ on the GPL.

None of which supports Alan's argument that nobody can honestly
misunderstand the GPL.

reply via email to

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