Erik Funkenbusch <[email protected]> writes: > On Mon, 4 May 2009 16:22:08 +0000 (UTC), Alan Mackenzie wrote: > >>> Day in day out the GPL is turned inside out. It's easy to CLAIM it's >>> easy but fact does not bond with your fiction. >> >> Huh? The GPL is perfectly plain and straightforward and means what it >> says. You don't even need to get a lawyer to explain it to you, though >> you certainly should consult one if you're going to be redistributing >> GPL'd software. >> >> The only people who "find" it difficult to understand are those who wish >> to violate it and FUDsters who wish to propagate the unfounded notion >> that nasty unforseen things can happen to people using or modifying GPL'd >> software. >> >> And please lose that nasty "CLAIM" word. > > The GPL is misunderstood on a daily basis by many people. In fact, even > GPL advocates can't seem to come to a consensus over what it means, so how > is any "normal" person supposed to know?
Because the great Ian Hilliard'esque Alan McKenzie says you. Apparently it's a piece of piss. > > Here's an example. Some GPL advocates believe that dynamic linking is not > covered by the GPL, while others (including the FSF) believe it is. > > Another example is XMLRPC (or SOAP or other similar technoloties) in which > a function is called via network request on a distributed system. Some > believe that this is covered by the GPL, others believe it isn't. > > Many people think the GPL prevents you from charging money for GPL > software, yet the FSF says they encourage you to do so. > > Many people think the GPL requires you to "give back" your changes to the > author, but nothing could be further from the truth. Even if you consider > the GPL's software requirements to provide source to anyone you provide > binaries that doesnt' require you to give that source to the upstream > authors, only the downstream customers. > > So no, the GPL is *NOT* perfectly plain and straight forward. And yes, you > do need a lawyer to explain it to you, particulary when the issues of > "derived work" are brought up, since the GPL does not define the term and > relies on the accepted legal definition of the term, which is not as simple > as it would seem. > > The only people who do *NOT* find the GPL difficult to understand are those > thoat think they understand it when they really do not. Sounds about right. Alan can stamp his feet and rub his bears all he likes but the *facts* are that people do NOT understand the GPL. -- In view of all the deadly computer viruses that have been spreading lately, Weekend Update would like to remind you: when you link up to another computer, you’re linking up to every computer that that computer has ever linked up to. — Dennis Miller _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
