Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed

[Alan Mackenzie]

In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack <user@example.net> wrote:
> Alan Mackenzie wrote:

>> Oh, here we go again.  That's FUD, Rjack.  You're well aware that 
>> that only applies when the other decides to license his code under 
>> the GPL, possibly as a consequence of his (free) decision to 
>> incorporate some GPL code into his program.

> You and thousands of GNUtians are SORELY confused if you truly believe
> that an illegal contract (defined as one against "public policy")
> becomes a legally enforceable contract just because someone freely
> accepts the contract terms. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Rjack, I absolutely refuse to entertain this sophistry yet one more
time.  It's already been discussed to death on this mailing list.

Yet again: anybody is free to license his code with the GPL or any other
license of his choice.  If he wishes to incorporate existing GPL
licensed code into his own program, then he must also license his program
under the GPL.  That is the full extent of the alleged "compulsion" you
refer to.

Now, why don't you consider why so much software is licensed under the
GPL of whichever version.  You know, there might just be a reason.
Exercise your mental faculties, and see what hypothes[ie]s you can come
up with.

> Sincerely,
> Rjack

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).