Re: GPL traitor !

[Erik Funkenbusch]

On Tue, 05 May 2009 23:12:10 GMT, Thufir Hawat wrote:

> On Tue, 05 May 2009 12:36:00 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, 5 May 2009 13:01:41 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>> 
>>> After takin' a swig o' grog, Erik Funkenbusch belched out
>>>   this bit o' wisdom:
>>> 
>>>> On Tue, 5 May 2009 07:13:19 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Nice summary of standard legal procedure, corner cases, and
>>>>> descriptions of uninformed people.
>>>>> 
>>>>> You know, the tip-of-the-iceberg stuff that people focus on for
>>>>> purposes of FUD, while the vast majority /depend/ on the GPL.
>>>>
>>>> None of which supports Alan's argument that nobody can honestly
>>>> misunderstand the GPL.
>>> 
>>> Nobody can honestly not understand the main meanings of the GPL.
>>> 
>>> That being said, version 3 is a bit more difficult to follow.
>> 
>> ahh.. now you move the goalpost.. the "main meaning".  The main meaning
>> is certainly clear, but the details are where the trouble lies, and
>> where most people don't understand or interpret differently.
> 
> Some the misunderstandings you cite are effects of the GPL.  For 
> instance, sure, there's only a downstream requirment, but, in effect 
> improvements will make their way upstream.  So, what's the harm of this 
> misconception?

No, improvements don't necessarily make their way upstream.  Let's say I
create an app derived from GPL code.  I sell it for $1 million dollars.  Do
you really think the guy that paid $1 million for it will just give the
code away to others?  Nope.