Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean

[Rjack]

Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack <user@example.net> wrote:
> > Thufir Hawat wrote:
> > > On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 08:07:03 -0400, Rjack wrote:
>
> > > > Thufir Hawat wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 12:35:51 -0400, Rjack wrote:
>
> > > The logical conclusion of your argument is that the GPL is 
> > > pointless.
>
> > > And, since the BSD license is toothless, why even bother? Just 
> > > license it the same way sqlite is licensed: public domain. 
> > > That's the conclusion which can be drawn from your argument.
>
> > The conclusion that can be drawn from *my* argument is that using
> >  permissive licensed open source code such as BSD licensed 
> > programs will prevent someone from being hauled into federal 
> > court by a band of wild-eyed zealots who practice socialism in 
> > software licensing as a religion.
>
> :-)  The GPL is really crystal clear; it isn't some tricky document
>  with hidden traps waiting to snap.  A normally intelligent child 
> could understand it.  If you conform to its requirements, which are
>  few and clear, you won't have any problem with "wild-eyed
> socialist zealots".  If you don't like those requirements, use
> other code instead.
>
> > If *you* wish to present *your* argument that open source code 
> > should be released as public domain then present it as *your* 
> > argument since is certainly not *my* argument.
>
> It seems to be *your* argument, sustained by your own 
> interpretation of some judges' decisions, that licensing code under
>  the GPL is tantamount to making it public domain.

You are not entitled to make up your own facts. Where have I ever
claimed that GPL licensed code is "tantamount"to public domain code?
Please use Google and all the resources at your disposal to
demonstrate that I have claimed such a thing.

I have long argued that users who rely on GPL licensed code have
grounds for a contract claim of promissory estoppel.

Sincerely,
Rjack :)