Re: Significance of the GP licence.

[RJack]

David Kastrup wrote:
> RJack <user@example.net> writes:
>
> > VICTOR TARABOLA CORTIANO wrote:
> > > OK I'm so fucking tired of this.
> > >
> > > I use OpenBSD. I use GCC. Use GNU/Linux.
> > >
> > > BSD is free. GPL is free.
> > Don't worry. The GPL license and the "Free Software" religion will
> >  soon reside in history's trashbin that contains Urban Legends.
>
> A few people told RMS when he started.  Now it is a whole hissing and
>  yelling bunch.  That they bother is the best proof that they are 
> wrong. And they know it.

There are still a few nut-jobs out there in Cyberspace who believe the
GPL is enforceable, even though the license requires that copyright
permissions be licensed at "no charge to all third parties".

The United States Supreme Court held in the famous Sony Betamax case:

"[A]" use that has no demonstrable effect upon the potential market for,
or the value of, the copyrighted work need not be prohibited in order to
protect the author's incentive to create. The prohibition of such
noncommercial uses would merely inhibit access to ideas without any
countervailing benefit." Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City
Studios, Inc., 464 US 417.

When Stallman worshipers like DAK read this citation, their eyelids slam
shut and they retreat into their tidy world of denial and make-believe.

Sincerely,
RJack :)