Re: Matt Assay Tells the Truth

[Rjack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> Rjack wrote:
> > explain to them that their definition of "freedom" is wrong.
>
> The FSF explains at length what they mean by free software. It is
>  spelled out clearly in the GPL as well. The only people
> adversely affected by restrictions on what may be done with free
> software are developers who wish to restrict the freedom of their
> users. Those people would not be any happier if free software
> were named something else. It is no different than freedom of
> speech being surrounded by a web of restrictions concerning
> slander, libel, obscenity, or national emergency. Reasonable
> people understand.

> People who resort to dictionary definitions in the belief that 
> this makes a cogent point are to be pitied.

Thanks for the empathy Hymen. I try to stick to the ordinary
meanings assigned to words. I'm sure redefining words as you wish is
very convenient -- just as the FSF attempts to redefine copyright
law to suit their socialist agenda.

You never lose do you Hymen? You just mooooooove the goalposts.

> > Perhaps after they change their definition to suit Stallman's 
> > philosophy you'll have a better chance of making all of us 
> > ardent socialists.
>
> No one is trying to make you be anything.

I'll believe that when the SFLC stops filing bogus lawsuits.

> No one is forcing you to develop software, and if you do develop 
> software, no one is forcing you to adopt a particular license. 
> The GPL creates a community of code developed by people who share
>  the belief that users should have the freedom to run, read, 
> modify, and share software. That code may be incorporated into 
> other software only if that other software is under the same 
> license. Simply choose not to do so if that is what you wish. The
>  GPL community will happily ignore you, and you may happily
> ignore them.
>
> > My God! However did society ever manage before Stallman came 
> > along? We're so grateful he's saving us from ourselves.
>
> Do you really find it so peculiar and upsetting that some people 
> have different points of view than you do? You must live a very 
> insular existence.

What happened to your self-serving, pious "ad hominem" lamentation?

> > Except file bogus lawsuits in attempts to intimidate folks into
> >  believing the GPL is an enforceable legal contract.
>
> And successful ones at that. Even assuming that your arguments 
> about the GPL not being enforceable are correct, which they are 
> not,

Put your money where your mouth is and use legal argumentation and
authority instead of empty rhetoric -- for instance it would only
take one example of a federal court ruling (that's where the rubber
meets the road) that a copyright license is not a contract. *That*
would remove the wind from my sails. The FSF has had years to back
up their legal claim that a "license is not a contract" but the only
thing the software world has ever seen is self-serving bullshit.

> the GPL clearly expresses the intent of the developers who use 
> it. Why are we to feel sympathy for people who disregard this 
> intent?

Good question since the GPL is clearly illegal and unenforcable.

> > Upset? I don't have to file bogus copyright lawsuits to 
> > concisely express my views. That fact leaves me at peace.
>
> After each suit filed by the SFLC, the GPLed software was made 
> properly available by the defendants or their agents.

Except that Verizon told the SFLC to kiss their royal purple ass.

> That leaves me at peace. Good. I'm glad we're both happy.

Sincerely,
Rjack :)




-- "Whether express or implied, a license is a contract 'governed
by ordinary principles of state contract law.'"; McCoy v.
Mitsuboshi Cutlery, Inc., 67. F.3d 917, (United States Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit 1995) --

-- "Although the United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C.  101-
1332, grants exclusive jurisdiction for infringement claims to the
federal courts, those courts construe copyrights as contracts and
turn to the relevant state law to interpret them."; Automation by
Design, Inc. v. Raybestos Products Co., 463 F.3d 749, (United
States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 2006) --