Alexander Terekhov <[email protected]> wrote: > Alan Mackenzie wrote: > [...]
>> Chances are, that excerpt was written by a lawyer who knows a lot >> about the law, and little to nothing about free software. He's >> obviously wrong in his assertions, since he appears not to understand >> what the goals of free software actually are. They certainly aren't >> about "creating software that [somebody] can truly call his own". He >> appears to belong > I'll try to explain it to you silly. Suppose you wrote a piece of > software and it is judged to be truly yours and only yours (not > infringing the rights of others). Yes. This is usually known as "proprietary software". > Guess what: you've got all your "four freedoms" and can enjoy freedom. Yes, but nobody else has. The software isn't free. As I've just said, it's usually categorised as "proprietary software". > On the other side of the spectrum is the same piece of software but > infringing based on idiotic expansive GNUish theory of derivative > works... now say goodbye to your "four freedoms." Say what? That doesn't even parse. > Got it now, Alan? Yes indeed. But you clearly haven't. > regards, > alexander. -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany). _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
