Alan Mackenzie wrote:
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.
You are not entitled to make up your own facts. Where have I ever
claimed that GPL licensed code is "tantamount"to public domain code?
Please use Google and all the resources at your disposal to
demonstrate that I have claimed such a thing.
I have long argued that users who rely on GPL licensed code have
grounds for a contract claim of promissory estoppel.
Sincerely,
Rjack :)
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
