Re: [Matt Asay Tells The Truth] Stallman: GPL doesn't guarantee software freedom

[chrisv]

David Kastrup wrote:

>Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:
>>
>> Apart from that, "or later" is utter legal nonsense because absent
>> sublicensing, the "later" license terms may come into effect only by
>> the affirmative act of the copyright holder and for that nobody needs
>> "or later" clause.

Idiot.

>Nonsense.  The "affirmative act" is accomplished in advance when the
>copyright holder acts according to the recommendation:
>
>            How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs
>
>  If you develop a new program, and you want it to be of the greatest
>possible use to the public, the best way to achieve this is to make it
>free software which everyone can redistribute and change under these terms.
>
>  To do so, attach the following notices to the program.  It is safest
>to attach them to the start of each source file to most effectively
>state the exclusion of warranty; and each file should have at least
>the "copyright" line and a pointer to where the full notice is found.
>
>    <one line to give the program's name and a brief idea of what it does.>
>    Copyright (C) <year>  <name of author>
>
>    This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
>    it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
>    the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or
>    (at your option) any later version.
>
>[...]

It's "real difficult" to understand that plain language, eh?

Sheesh, these anti-freedom trolls are incredibly dishonest and stupid.

-- 
Question:  Are you actually claiming that because linux supports NTFS
and VFAT it should also defrag them?
Hadron Quark's answer:  Yes.