Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed

[Alan Mackenzie]

In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack <user@example.net> wrote:
> Alan Mackenzie wrote:

>> They would do it differently, of course; hindsight is a wonderful 
>> thing. But the fact remains that it was and is under the GPL that 
>> most free and open source software has been written.

> Fact eh? Still on the crusade concerning the definition of "free" as
> used in the English language?

Not particularly.  Please reread my last paragraph as though there were
quote marks around the word "free", and then consider responding to the
substance of what I wrote

> The GPL (if it were enforceable) is a highly restrictive license which
> attempts to assume control of other's exclusive copyrights.

Oh, here we go again.  That's FUD, Rjack.  You're well aware that that
only applies when the other decides to license his code under the GPL,
possibly as a consequence of his (free) decision to incorporate some GPL
code into his program.

>> There's comparatively little under the BSD licence, for example, 
>> which strongly suggests that the GPL has, in the main, got things 
>> right.

> GNUtians remind me the current members of the "Tea Party" protests
> occurring here in the U.S. (GNUtians may have a little more focus).

Which tea party would that be?  Is "party" here a convivial gathering or
a political organisation?

> Sincerely,
> Rjack

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).