In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack <[email protected]> wrote: > Thufir Hawat wrote: >> On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 08:07:03 -0400, Rjack wrote:
>>> Thufir Hawat wrote: >>>> On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 12:35:51 -0400, Rjack wrote: >> The logical conclusion of your argument is that the GPL is pointless. >> And, since the BSD license is toothless, why even bother? Just >> license it the same way sqlite is licensed: public domain. That's >> the conclusion which can be drawn from your argument. > The conclusion that can be drawn from *my* argument is that using > permissive licensed open source code such as BSD licensed programs > will prevent someone from being hauled into federal court by a band of > wild-eyed zealots who practice socialism in software licensing as a > religion. :-) The GPL is really crystal clear; it isn't some tricky document with hidden traps waiting to snap. A normally intelligent child could understand it. If you conform to its requirements, which are few and clear, you won't have any problem with "wild-eyed socialist zealots". If you don't like those requirements, use other code instead. > If *you* wish to present *your* argument that open source code should > be released as public domain then present it as *your* argument since > is certainly not *my* argument. It seems to be *your* argument, sustained by your own interpretation of some judges' decisions, that licensing code under the GPL is tantamount to making it public domain. > Sincerely, > Rjack :) -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany). _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
