Re: Is the GPL all encompassing?

[amicus_curious]

"Hyman Rosen" <hyrosen@mail.com> wrote in message 
news:%xmBk.108$Aw3.93@fe109.usenetserver.com...
> amicus_curious wrote:
> > My belief is that the GPL is totally unnecessary because what it
> > seeks to prevent isn't a viable outcome to beging with.
>
> It seeks to prevent a software user from being unable to run,
> read, change, or share a program. Since software users are
> routinely denied these freedoms, I fail to see why you think
> what the GPL prevents is not a viable outcome.

I would agree that providing source code itself is enough to enable a user 
to do all of that regardless of the fact that changes are so unlikely to 
ever occur.  The GPL only adds a provision to enforce this on someone who 
might be unwilling to do so with some improvement absent the requirement to 
divulge any new source.  I think that this would never happen in any case. 
I don't think that it has ever happened in the past either.  Who but the 
project team has ever made any change to any major project?