Re: GNU licenses

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> > Even utterly proprietary and closed software can benefiting
> > society.
> 
> Sure, and so does war.  That does not mean that it is a good idea to
> create circumstances where this is the case.

Yeah right, and so, to braindamaged GNUtians like you, all-rights-
reserved-binary-only software is not only akin to human slavery, 
but it also resembles occupation, destruction of humans and property, 
etc. by armed forces. To doctor, to doctor you should go.

> 
> > And I certainly don't see any problems with availability of sources
> > to study code and conveniently exercise right to modify/adapt under
> > 17 USC 117. It doesn't need a license, it works with all rights
> > reserved.
> 
> Uh, the source does not get available by magic.  It needs to be
> explicitly provided before you can study and modify it.

Suppose that it is explicitly provided. Under your GNUtian crackpot
theory of derivative works, you can't link it to GPL'd stuff (and
vice versa) and it is GPL "incompatible".

> 
> > EPL/CPL is also fine (binaries need not be royalty free) as long as
> > one needs binaries in order to execute. Another factor being that it
> > is clear legalese and not moronic Stallmanese (which is only good
> > for your crackpot theories regarding "whole combined works" being
> > derivative works).
> 
> Look, the GPL explicitly states that the scope of derivative works is
> defined by copyright law.  

And then it goes on to explicitly misstate the statutory definition of 
derivative work, followed by barrage of moronic "substitutes" to 
further muddy the matter.

Under your crackpot theory, in absence of GPL Section 2 (recall that
it gives permission to modify [... your CD-ROMs! uh, retard RMS, it's 
a work, not a copy, that is modified, resulting in a copy of modified 
work] and form "a work based on the Program"), no GPL "program" could 
ever be linked with any "non-standard" GPL "library". 

No permission is given! Uh, GNU morons.

regards,
alexander.