Re: GPL misappropriation

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:
> 
> Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:
> 
> > Hey stupid dak, here's a nice post on sublicensing. Hth.
> >
> > http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=296845&cid=20592673
> > (IANAL, but I actually agree with Theo)
> >
> > "... Here are specific points I would make:
> >
> > 1) While the BSDL and related licenses clearly do not have the intent to
> > force sharing of code, they clearly *do* have the intent to provide the
> > downstream recipients of the original elements of that code with the
> > rights listed in the license. So Theo is right that you cannot simply
> > wrap the BSDL in the GPL.
> 
> That is nonsensical since the BSDL is not a strong copyleft license.  I
> mean, you can "wrap" it in Microsoft EULAs.

Microsoft EULAs are not copyright licenses you retard.

> 
> > 2) Copyright law seems even in the US holds that nonexclusive licenses
> > are clearly indivisible and do not automatically grant sublicense
> > rights (a sublicense being a new license issued by a licensee).
> 
> The GPL is used for distributing the work as a whole.  

The GPL just can't apply to the BSDL licensed material because the BSDL
doesn't grant sublicensing rights you idiot. 

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux system 
so that I can do the builds."

Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this 
fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress."

Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm 
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can 
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards 
too, whereas GNU cannot.)