Re: GPL traitor !

[JEDIDIAH]

On 2009-05-14, Hadron <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> writes:
>
>> Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>> We have been discussing, in the main, a single computer program,
>>  > the GCC compiler.
[deletia]
>> No, you are completely wrong. You do not need permission from the other
>> copyright holder unless you copy. Copyright is about copying. US copyright
>> law explicitly protects interoperability with other programs. You are
>> inventing concepts to suit your purposes that simply do not exist in US
>> copyright law - their opposites do.
>>
>
> That's funny. You're still talking about. What happened to Alan#s claim
> that the GPL was really easy to understand?

    The GPL is pretty simple.

    Plenty of people like to try and weasel out of it though.

    The only really interesting issue is what a derivative work is. The
rest is simply a matter of very mundane copyright law. This is also 
something else that people try to turn into something that's more complex
than it really is.

     You can replace the GPL with any other license or EULA or even straight
copyright law and end up with the same "problem".

     Courts exist because most people aren't honorable enough for just a 
simple handshake.

-- 
"Microsoft looks at new ideas, they don't evaluate whether 
the idea will move the industry forward, they ask,                    |||
'how will it help us sell more copies of Windows?'"                  / | \

                         -- Bill Gates