Doug Mentohl wrote:
> flattie amicus Rjack wrote:
>
>> This is the central flaw of the GPL license. It attempts to secure the
>> exclusive rights of a modifying author who accepts GPL code by
>> attempting to force them to license their modifications "to all third
>> parties" under terms of the GPL. A "viral" public copyright license is
>> the very definition of copyright misuse.
>
> What you are engaged in here is a tautological inexactitude. A license
> can't be simultaneously exclusive or applicable 'to all'. And nowhere in
> the GPL does the author rescind his copyright. In fact removal of the
> copyright notice is a violation of the GPL ..
>
> "the FSF decided long ago to allow developers to use GCC's libraries to
> compile any program, regardless of its license"
>
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception-faq.html
>
> "Developers that use the GNU GPL protect your rights with two steps: (1)
> assert copyright on the software, and (2) offer you this License giving
> you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify it"
>
> http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl.html
Do you actually think that "Rjack" has smarts enough to understand simple
things?
He has been told numerous times that his "views" on the GPL are the
biggest pile of bullshit imaginable. He is dumber than dirt
--
Law of Probable Dispersal:
Whatever it is that hits the fan will not be evenly distributed.
|
|
