Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

[amicus_curious]

"Thufir Hawat" <hawat.thufir@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:T9jol.24565$uG1.12811@newsfe16.iad...
> On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 21:14:47 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:
>
> > "Thufir Hawat" <hawat.thufir@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:do0ol.50595$xK6.48752@newsfe12.iad...
> > > On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 17:39:24 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:
> > >
> > > > The FOSS value proposition is that if you use it, fine, and if you
> > > > modify it and distribute it you must disclose your modifications.
> > >
> > >
> > > Who says?
> > Do you have some other interpretation?  It would be useful for you to
> > state it.
>
>
> It's not that if you *modify and distribute* it that you must disclose
> your modifications, but that if you *distribute* you must disclose the
> source, at least for the GPL.
You seem to  be fixated on the text of the GPL.  I don't disagree with what 
it says.  I disagree with the notion that it has any practical value.  It is 
just an ego trip for the author to see his stuff scattered around the 
internet.  It doesn't help a soul, just gives the author a thrill.  The 
author, of course, could get some help from a psychiatrist and the whole 
issue could be put to bed.