On 2009-01-30, ZnU <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, David Kastrup <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> ZnU <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>> > I understand that the FSF is really, really hung up on every detail
>> > of the GPL, but frankly, they're fanatics.
>>
>> Fanatics have copyright like everybody else.
>
> Sure, I'm not saying they don't have a right to try to enforce the
> requirement to make source available even in the case of unmodified
> binary distribution. I'm just saying that there's no particular reason
> why anyone who's more interested in the practical impact of the GPL
The practical impact of the GPL doesn't exist without there
being a certain amount of "Law & Order" to the whole thing. The
GPL thrives by exploiting relevant laws, so tolerating scofflaws is
really not in ANYONES interest.
> rather than the ideology behind it should be particularly concerned
> about entities failing to distribute source as required in instances
> where that source is trivially available elsewhere.
>
> [snip]
>
Nevermind silly things like rules, laws or contracts.
The GPL wraps itself in "Law & Order" on purpose.
--
NO! There are no CODICILES of Fight Club! |||
/ | \
That way leads to lawyers and business megacorps and credit cards!
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
