Re: GPL traitor !

[Thufir Hawat]

On Tue, 05 May 2009 12:36:00 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

> On Tue, 5 May 2009 13:01:41 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> 
>> After takin' a swig o' grog, Erik Funkenbusch belched out
>>   this bit o' wisdom:
>> 
>>> On Tue, 5 May 2009 07:13:19 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> 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.
>> 
>> Nobody can honestly not understand the main meanings of the GPL.
>> 
>> That being said, version 3 is a bit more difficult to follow.
> 
> ahh.. now you move the goalpost.. the "main meaning".  The main meaning
> is certainly clear, but the details are where the trouble lies, and
> where most people don't understand or interpret differently.



Some the misunderstandings you cite are effects of the GPL.  For 
instance, sure, there's only a downstream requirment, but, in effect 
improvements will make their way upstream.  So, what's the harm of this 
misconception?


-Thufir