On Tue, 5 May 2009 07:13:19 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote: > After takin' a swig o' grog, Erik Funkenbusch belched out > this bit o' wisdom: > >> 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. >> >> 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. > > Nice summary of standard legal procedure, corner cases, and descriptions of > uninformed people. > > You know, the tip-of-the-iceberg stuff that people focus on for purposes of > FUD, while the vast majority /depend/ on the GPL.
None of which supports Alan's argument that nobody can honestly misunderstand the GPL. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
