On Tue, 05 May 2009 23:12:10 GMT, Thufir Hawat wrote: > On Tue, 05 May 2009 12:36:00 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote: > >> On Tue, 5 May 2009 13:01:41 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote: >> >>> After takin' a swig o' grog, Erik Funkenbusch belched out >>> this bit o' wisdom: >>> >>>> On Tue, 5 May 2009 07:13:19 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> 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. >>> >>> Nobody can honestly not understand the main meanings of the GPL. >>> >>> That being said, version 3 is a bit more difficult to follow. >> >> ahh.. now you move the goalpost.. the "main meaning". The main meaning >> is certainly clear, but the details are where the trouble lies, and >> where most people don't understand or interpret differently. > > Some the misunderstandings you cite are effects of the GPL. For > instance, sure, there's only a downstream requirment, but, in effect > improvements will make their way upstream. So, what's the harm of this > misconception?
No, improvements don't necessarily make their way upstream. Let's say I create an app derived from GPL code. I sell it for $1 million dollars. Do you really think the guy that paid $1 million for it will just give the code away to others? Nope. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
