Re: [LMAO] El Reg: "GPLv2 - copyright code or contract?"
Alan Mackenzie writes: > In the case of Qt, it seems the parties in dispute reached a > satisfactory resolution. I think that is a somewhat unfair characterization. That the end result is quite satisfactory for KDE/Qt users may be partly attributed to the FSF not moving an inch, but "the parties reached" is really suggesting a kind of bilateral process that was not involved here. The credit for the current state certainly belongs to Trolltech. Any credit to RMS is not for changing but rather for declaring his position. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: [LMAO] El Reg: "GPLv2 - copyright code or contract?"
In gnu.misc.discuss Tim Smith wrote: > In article <87ws2sybe7@lola.goethe.zz>, David Kastrup > wrote: >> Hadron writes: >> > David Kastrup writes: >> >> That has nothing whatsoever to do with "loopholes" or "complexity" in >> >> the GPL. It has to do with non-free software. >> >> The FSF stuck to its principles, and the makers of Qt decided to release >> >> it under a free license after all. >> >> Where is your problem with that? >> > he didn't say he had a problem. He said its not as clear cut as you >> > make it out. >> He only says that to annoy, because he knows it teases. > No, I say it because the license [GPL] is not as clear cut as you think > it is. The license is perfectly clear. It's reality which is foggy. > For most users of KDE, Qt was shipped as a component of the OS. It > should qualify for the system component exception of GPL. The FSF > thought that it didn't. > Can you point out where the GPLv2 clearly defines what exactly qualifies > for the system component exception? No, it can't and it shouldn't. Just as the laws against murder and rape are perfectly clear, but there are borderline cases which might or might not actually be murder or rape, there are borderline cases as to what exactly counts as a "system component". They can't be formulated exactly in the license, they must be determined as a matter of fact in each case. Such cases of doubt are fairly rare, though. In the case of Qt, it seems the parties in dispute reached a satisfactory resolution. -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany). ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: [LMAO] El Reg: "GPLv2 - copyright code or contract?"
David Kastrup pulled this Usenet boner: > Hadron writes: > >> David Kastrup writes: >> >>> That has nothing whatsoever to do with "loopholes" or "complexity" in >>> the GPL. It has to do with non-free software. >>> >>> The FSF stuck to its principles, and the makers of Qt decided to release >>> it under a free license after all. >>> >>> Where is your problem with that? >> >> he didn't say he had a problem. He said its not as clear cut as you >> make it out. > > He only says that to annoy, because he knows it teases. > >> As even you must realise by now because of the size of the threads and >> the fact you need to keep explaining things. > > Where is the point in letting the deliberate liars run the show? That would work for "Hadron". The bastard won't even use his real name. One problem with the deliberate liars, though. No amount of explaining will make them change their lies. -- You will lose your present job and have to become a door to door mayonnaise salesman. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: [LMAO] El Reg: "GPLv2 - copyright code or contract?"
Tim Smith writes: > In article <87ws2sybe7@lola.goethe.zz>, David Kastrup > wrote: > >> Hadron writes: >> >> > David Kastrup writes: >> > >> >> That has nothing whatsoever to do with "loopholes" or "complexity" in >> >> the GPL. It has to do with non-free software. >> >> >> >> The FSF stuck to its principles, and the makers of Qt decided to release >> >> it under a free license after all. >> >> >> >> Where is your problem with that? >> > >> > he didn't say he had a problem. He said its not as clear cut as you >> > make it out. >> >> He only says that to annoy, because he knows it teases. > > No, I say it because the license is not as clear cut as you think it > is. For most users of KDE, Qt was shipped as a component of the > OS. It should qualify for the system component exception of GPL. The > FSF thought that it didn't. Oh get real. On Windows, Qt had to be separately licensed for money. Certainly not shipped as "component of the OS". On all Linux systems I used, it was optional (and if some utility caused it to be installed, I removed that) and not part of the installed base. There was basically no KDE developer who would (or could) have worked with the development libraries provided by his system -- not suitable for ongoing development. Debian refused to carry Qt for a long time because of its unfree license. Most other providers with a freely redistributable Linux system had to do the same (unless they made special deals). The situation was quite clear in spite of the KDE developer's denial. Qt went DFSG free only about a year before they decided that they might as well GPL the stuff and get it over with. > Can you point out where the GPLv2 clearly defines what exactly > qualifies for the system component exception? Huh? Section 3 is quite clear on that: However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: [LMAO] El Reg: "GPLv2 - copyright code or contract?"
In article <87ws2sybe7@lola.goethe.zz>, David Kastrup wrote: > Hadron writes: > > > David Kastrup writes: > > > >> That has nothing whatsoever to do with "loopholes" or "complexity" in > >> the GPL. It has to do with non-free software. > >> > >> The FSF stuck to its principles, and the makers of Qt decided to release > >> it under a free license after all. > >> > >> Where is your problem with that? > > > > he didn't say he had a problem. He said its not as clear cut as you > > make it out. > > He only says that to annoy, because he knows it teases. No, I say it because the license is not as clear cut as you think it is. For most users of KDE, Qt was shipped as a component of the OS. It should qualify for the system component exception of GPL. The FSF thought that it didn't. Can you point out where the GPLv2 clearly defines what exactly qualifies for the system component exception? -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: [LMAO] El Reg: "GPLv2 - copyright code or contract?"
Tim Smith writes: > In article <8763acztoq@lola.goethe.zz>, David Kastrup > wrote: >> > >> > The KDE developers were operating in good faith when they dynamically >> > linked to non-GPL Qt. This is allowed under GPLv2, because Qt was >> > something normally distributed with the components of the operating >> > system on which KDE ran. >> > >> > But the FSF threw a fit over this, until the makers of Qt changed the >> > license. >> >> Huh? Qt was not merely licensed "non-GPL" but non-free. KDE relied on > > It was not non-free. The license, among other things, prohibited porting to Windows. There were quite a number of terms that put Trolltech into a special position with regard to changes and redistribution. The license went through several iterations. I think there was a final time span of about a year where it was indeed meeting the criteria for free software, but was still GPL-incompatible. And thus not worthwhile for GNU. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: [LMAO] El Reg: "GPLv2 - copyright code or contract?"
In article <8763acztoq@lola.goethe.zz>, David Kastrup wrote: > > > > The KDE developers were operating in good faith when they dynamically > > linked to non-GPL Qt. This is allowed under GPLv2, because Qt was > > something normally distributed with the components of the operating > > system on which KDE ran. > > > > But the FSF threw a fit over this, until the makers of Qt changed the > > license. > > Huh? Qt was not merely licensed "non-GPL" but non-free. KDE relied on It was not non-free. -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: [LMAO] El Reg: "GPLv2 - copyright code or contract?"
Hadron writes: > David Kastrup writes: > >> That has nothing whatsoever to do with "loopholes" or "complexity" in >> the GPL. It has to do with non-free software. >> >> The FSF stuck to its principles, and the makers of Qt decided to release >> it under a free license after all. >> >> Where is your problem with that? > > he didn't say he had a problem. He said its not as clear cut as you > make it out. He only says that to annoy, because he knows it teases. > As even you must realise by now because of the size of the threads and > the fact you need to keep explaining things. Where is the point in letting the deliberate liars run the show? -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: [LMAO] El Reg: "GPLv2 - copyright code or contract?"
David Kastrup writes: > Tim Smith writes: > >> In article , Alan Mackenzie >> wrote: >>> Not at all. It's equally likely, in fact more likely, certain personages >>> wish to sustain the illusion that it's "quite complex", and "possibly >>> dangerous", for reasons best known to themselves. Simply reading it is >>> sufficient to see its simplicity. What is complex is the copyright law >>> under which the GPL must operate. >>> >>> Software writers of good faith have no difficulty at all with the GPL. >>> Only to those seeking loopholes in it in order to violate its intentions >>> is there any "danger" or "complexity". >> >> The KDE developers were operating in good faith when they dynamically >> linked to non-GPL Qt. This is allowed under GPLv2, because Qt was >> something normally distributed with the components of the operating >> system on which KDE ran. >> >> But the FSF threw a fit over this, until the makers of Qt changed the >> license. > > Huh? Qt was not merely licensed "non-GPL" but non-free. KDE relied on > the non-free Qt as a crucial infrastructure, so the FSF strongly > recommended not using KDE. In a similar vein, the FSF strongly advised > against using Java as long as it was licensed non-free. And other > software. > > That has nothing whatsoever to do with "loopholes" or "complexity" in > the GPL. It has to do with non-free software. > > The FSF stuck to its principles, and the makers of Qt decided to release > it under a free license after all. > > Where is your problem with that? he didn't say he had a problem. He said its not as clear cut as you make it out. As even you must realise by now because of the size of the threads and the fact you need to keep explaining things. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: [LMAO] El Reg: "GPLv2 - copyright code or contract?"
Tim Smith writes: > In article , Alan Mackenzie > wrote: >> Not at all. It's equally likely, in fact more likely, certain personages >> wish to sustain the illusion that it's "quite complex", and "possibly >> dangerous", for reasons best known to themselves. Simply reading it is >> sufficient to see its simplicity. What is complex is the copyright law >> under which the GPL must operate. >> >> Software writers of good faith have no difficulty at all with the GPL. >> Only to those seeking loopholes in it in order to violate its intentions >> is there any "danger" or "complexity". > > The KDE developers were operating in good faith when they dynamically > linked to non-GPL Qt. This is allowed under GPLv2, because Qt was > something normally distributed with the components of the operating > system on which KDE ran. > > But the FSF threw a fit over this, until the makers of Qt changed the > license. Huh? Qt was not merely licensed "non-GPL" but non-free. KDE relied on the non-free Qt as a crucial infrastructure, so the FSF strongly recommended not using KDE. In a similar vein, the FSF strongly advised against using Java as long as it was licensed non-free. And other software. That has nothing whatsoever to do with "loopholes" or "complexity" in the GPL. It has to do with non-free software. The FSF stuck to its principles, and the makers of Qt decided to release it under a free license after all. Where is your problem with that? -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: [LMAO] El Reg: "GPLv2 - copyright code or contract?"
In article , Alan Mackenzie wrote: > Not at all. It's equally likely, in fact more likely, certain personages > wish to sustain the illusion that it's "quite complex", and "possibly > dangerous", for reasons best known to themselves. Simply reading it is > sufficient to see its simplicity. What is complex is the copyright law > under which the GPL must operate. > > Software writers of good faith have no difficulty at all with the GPL. > Only to those seeking loopholes in it in order to violate its intentions > is there any "danger" or "complexity". The KDE developers were operating in good faith when they dynamically linked to non-GPL Qt. This is allowed under GPLv2, because Qt was something normally distributed with the components of the operating system on which KDE ran. But the FSF threw a fit over this, until the makers of Qt changed the license. -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: [LMAO] El Reg: "GPLv2 - copyright code or contract?"
Hadron wrote: If "slightest difficulty" means you don't really care the fine. But to try and maintain it's clear and easy is somewhat disingenuous on your part. It should be abbundantly apparent to anyone who follows thread about the GPL that it's not "easy" and "totally clear" at all. What is "easy" and "totally clear" is that we have an author and "Two prominent IP lawyers" who are actually ignorant enough to pose questions like: "GPLv2 - copyright code or contract?" and "This marks one of the core questions of GPLv2: Is it based on copyright or is it a contract that, while borrowing some copyright terms, ultimately stands on its own?". "Whether express or implied, a license is a contract 'governed by ordinary principles of state contract law.'"; McCoy v. Mitsuboshi Cutlery, Inc., 67. F.3d 917, (United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 1995). "Normal rules of contract construction are generally applied in construing copyright agreements. Nimmer on Copyright sec. 10.08. Under Wisconsin law, contracts are to be construed as they are written." Amcast Indus. Corp. v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 584 N.W.2d 218, 226 (Wis. App. 1998). 187 F.3d 690 (United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 1999). "Although the United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 101- 1332, grants exclusive jurisdiction for infringement claims to the federal courts, those courts construe copyrights as contracts and turn to the relevant state law to interpret them."; Automation by Design, Inc. v. Raybestos Products Co., 463 F.3d 749, (United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 2006). For God's sake where do GPL proponents dredge up these incompetent Shysters? Where'd they graduate fron law school? Groklaw? ROFL Sincerely, Rjack ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: [LMAO] El Reg: "GPLv2 - copyright code or contract?"
In gnu.misc.discuss Alexander Terekhov wrote: > Alan Mackenzie wrote: > [...] >> Yes. I remember asking you once, and you failed to reply "yes". If I'm > Writing software is how I make money, Alan. Sorry, I misremembered. When I asked you "Are you a programmer, in any sense of that word?", your answer (in Message-ID: <43ebe494.fa5c7...@web.de>) was "sort of". That was more than a little equivocal. Can I now take it that you've since become a full-bloodied programmer? > regards, > alexander. -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany). ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: [LMAO] El Reg: "GPLv2 - copyright code or contract?"
On 2009-10-17, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > > > In gnu.misc.discuss Hadron wrote: >> Alan Mackenzie writes: > >>> In gnu.misc.discuss Alexander Terekhov wrote: > Alan Mackenzie wrote: [...] > Software writers of good faith have no difficulty at all with the GPL. > Who appointed you to talk for "software writers of good faith", Alan? > >>> Don't be silly. One doesn't need to be elected to state plain facts. > >>> I am myself a software writer of good faith, and I know lots of others, >>> and none of us has the slightest difficulty with the GPL. You are not >>> a software writer at all, as far as I can remember, so you're not in a >>> position to dispute this. > >> If "slightest difficulty" means you don't really care the fine. But to >> try and maintain it's clear and easy is somewhat disingenuous on your >> part. It should be abbundantly apparent to anyone who follows thread >> about the GPL that it's not "easy" and "totally clear" at all. The GPL is very plain and clear. The problem is that it represents something that many people would like to "pirate". They want to make excuses to justify their "freeloading". They are the very definition of "freetards". They want to take advantage of the work of others while ignoring the terms under which it is provided. Now this is the height of hypocrisy. This is the perfect example of Hadron proving himself the faithful Lemming. > > I care a very great deal about the GPL, the license I hack under. It is > a model of clear writing. This is not to be conflated with the copyright > law in various jurisdictions, which can be confusing and complicated > indeed. > > It isn't difficult to spread FUD about the GPL, particularly to those who > don't trouble themselves to read it. Those who create this FUD in this > mailing list are, with one exception, anonymous, and it is thus impossible > to establish their credentials, motivations, who (if anybody) pays them > to spread the FUD, etc. The exception who isn't anonymous stated some > while ago that attacking the GPL was his "hobby". > > Those who maintain the GPL is not clear, and are fluent readers of > English, are either being disingenuous or dishonest themselves, or are of > somewhat limited intellectual capacity. > -- Nothing quite gives you an understanding of Oracle's ||| continued popularity as does an attempt to do some / | \ simple date manipulations in postgres. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: [LMAO] El Reg: "GPLv2 - copyright code or contract?"
Alan Mackenzie wrote: [...] > Yes. I remember asking you once, and you failed to reply "yes". If I'm Writing software is how I make money, Alan. regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: [LMAO] El Reg: "GPLv2 - copyright code or contract?"
In gnu.misc.discuss Alexander Terekhov wrote: > Alan Mackenzie wrote: > [...] >> You are not a software writer at all, as far as I can remember, so ... > You "remember" that I am "not a software writer at all"... wow, > interesting, care to elaborate, Alan? Yes. I remember asking you once, and you failed to reply "yes". If I'm mistaken on you not being a software writer, please accept my apologies and clarify the position. > regards, > alexander. < http://terekhov.de/DESIGN-futex-CV.cpp > -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany). ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: [LMAO] El Reg: "GPLv2 - copyright code or contract?"
In gnu.misc.discuss Hadron wrote: > Alan Mackenzie writes: >> In gnu.misc.discuss Alexander Terekhov wrote: >>> Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>> [...] Software writers of good faith have no difficulty at all with the GPL. >>> Who appointed you to talk for "software writers of good faith", Alan? >> Don't be silly. One doesn't need to be elected to state plain facts. >> I am myself a software writer of good faith, and I know lots of others, >> and none of us has the slightest difficulty with the GPL. You are not >> a software writer at all, as far as I can remember, so you're not in a >> position to dispute this. > If "slightest difficulty" means you don't really care the fine. But to > try and maintain it's clear and easy is somewhat disingenuous on your > part. It should be abbundantly apparent to anyone who follows thread > about the GPL that it's not "easy" and "totally clear" at all. I care a very great deal about the GPL, the license I hack under. It is a model of clear writing. This is not to be conflated with the copyright law in various jurisdictions, which can be confusing and complicated indeed. It isn't difficult to spread FUD about the GPL, particularly to those who don't trouble themselves to read it. Those who create this FUD in this mailing list are, with one exception, anonymous, and it is thus impossible to establish their credentials, motivations, who (if anybody) pays them to spread the FUD, etc. The exception who isn't anonymous stated some while ago that attacking the GPL was his "hobby". Those who maintain the GPL is not clear, and are fluent readers of English, are either being disingenuous or dishonest themselves, or are of somewhat limited intellectual capacity. -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany). ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: [LMAO] El Reg: "GPLv2 - copyright code or contract?"
Alan Mackenzie wrote: [...] > You are not a software writer at all, as far as I can remember, so ... You "remember" that I am "not a software writer at all"... wow, interesting, care to elaborate, Alan? regards, alexander. < http://terekhov.de/DESIGN-futex-CV.cpp > -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: [LMAO] El Reg: "GPLv2 - copyright code or contract?"
Alan Mackenzie writes: > In gnu.misc.discuss Alexander Terekhov wrote: > >> Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> [...] >>> Software writers of good faith have no difficulty at all with the GPL. > >> Who appointed you to talk for "software writers of good faith", Alan? > > Don't be silly. One doesn't need to be elected to state plain facts. > > I am myself a software writer of good faith, and I know lots of others, > and none of us has the slightest difficulty with the GPL. You are not > a software writer at all, as far as I can remember, so you're not in a > position to dispute this. If "slightest difficulty" means you don't really care the fine. But to try and maintain it's clear and easy is somewhat disingenuous on your part. It should be abbundantly apparent to anyone who follows thread about the GPL that it's not "easy" and "totally clear" at all. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: [LMAO] El Reg: "GPLv2 - copyright code or contract?"
In gnu.misc.discuss Alexander Terekhov wrote: > Alan Mackenzie wrote: > [...] >> Software writers of good faith have no difficulty at all with the GPL. > Who appointed you to talk for "software writers of good faith", Alan? Don't be silly. One doesn't need to be elected to state plain facts. I am myself a software writer of good faith, and I know lots of others, and none of us has the slightest difficulty with the GPL. You are not a software writer at all, as far as I can remember, so you're not in a position to dispute this. > regards, > alexander. -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany). ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: [LMAO] El Reg: "GPLv2 - copyright code or contract?"
Alan Mackenzie wrote: [...] > Software writers of good faith have no difficulty at all with the GPL. Who appointed you to talk for "software writers of good faith", Alan? regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: [LMAO] El Reg: "GPLv2 - copyright code or contract?"
On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 15:31:38 + (UTC), Alan Mackenzie wrote: > In gnu.misc.discuss Moshe Goldfarb wrote: >> On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 15:30:35 +0200, Hadron wrote: > >>> Alexander Terekhov writes: > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/15/black_duck_gpl_web_conference_copenhaver_radcliffe/ > "GPLv2 - copyright code or contract? > Open source legal minds unravel license > By Austin Modine in San Francisco ? Get more from this author > Posted in Software, 15th October 2009 06:02 GMT > Two prominent IP lawyers have warned that the all-pervasive General Public License version 2 (GPLv2) contains legally ambiguous wording that may be problematic for licensees. > >>> Impossible. > >>> Peter Koehlmann told us here in COLA that is was "easy" and only >>> "windiots" could not understand it. He is, of course, quite insane. > >> Just about every single one of these "what's the GPL" type >> threads goes on for pages. > > Yes. Ghastly, isn't it? > >> This pretty much confirms that it is quite complex and in fact >> could possibly be dangerous depending upon interpretation. > > Not at all. It's equally likely, in fact more likely, certain personages > wish to sustain the illusion that it's "quite complex", and "possibly > dangerous", for reasons best known to themselves. Simply reading it is > sufficient to see its simplicity. What is complex is the copyright law > under which the GPL must operate. You make an interesting point ! > Software writers of good faith have no difficulty at all with the GPL. > Only to those seeking loopholes in it in order to violate its intentions > is there any "danger" or "complexity". I was thinking more along the lines of the suits in major corporations being shy of the GPL for those reasons. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: [LMAO] El Reg: "GPLv2 - copyright code or contract?"
In gnu.misc.discuss Moshe Goldfarb wrote: > On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 15:30:35 +0200, Hadron wrote: >> Alexander Terekhov writes: >>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/15/black_duck_gpl_web_conference_copenhaver_radcliffe/ >>> "GPLv2 - copyright code or contract? >>> Open source legal minds unravel license >>> By Austin Modine in San Francisco ? Get more from this author >>> Posted in Software, 15th October 2009 06:02 GMT >>> Two prominent IP lawyers have warned that the all-pervasive General >>> Public License version 2 (GPLv2) contains legally ambiguous wording that >>> may be problematic for licensees. >> Impossible. >> Peter Koehlmann told us here in COLA that is was "easy" and only >> "windiots" could not understand it. He is, of course, quite insane. > Just about every single one of these "what's the GPL" type > threads goes on for pages. Yes. Ghastly, isn't it? > This pretty much confirms that it is quite complex and in fact > could possibly be dangerous depending upon interpretation. Not at all. It's equally likely, in fact more likely, certain personages wish to sustain the illusion that it's "quite complex", and "possibly dangerous", for reasons best known to themselves. Simply reading it is sufficient to see its simplicity. What is complex is the copyright law under which the GPL must operate. Software writers of good faith have no difficulty at all with the GPL. Only to those seeking loopholes in it in order to violate its intentions is there any "danger" or "complexity". -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany). ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: [LMAO] El Reg: "GPLv2 - copyright code or contract?"
On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 15:30:35 +0200, Hadron wrote: > Alexander Terekhov writes: > >> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/15/black_duck_gpl_web_conference_copenhaver_radcliffe/ >> >> "GPLv2 - copyright code or contract? >> >> Open source legal minds unravel license >> >> By Austin Modine in San Francisco ‧ Get more from this author >> >> Posted in Software, 15th October 2009 06:02 GMT >> >> Two prominent IP lawyers have warned that the all-pervasive General >> Public License version 2 (GPLv2) contains legally ambiguous wording that >> may be problematic for licensees. > > Impossible. > > Peter Koehlmann told us here in COLA that is was "easy" and only > "windiots" could not understand it. He is, of course, quite insane. Just about every single one of these "what's the GPL" type threads goes on for pages. This pretty much confirms that it is quite complex and in fact could possibly be dangerous depending upon interpretation. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: [LMAO] El Reg: "GPLv2 - copyright code or contract?"
Alexander Terekhov writes: > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/15/black_duck_gpl_web_conference_copenhaver_radcliffe/ > > "GPLv2 - copyright code or contract? > > Open source legal minds unravel license > > By Austin Modine in San Francisco • Get more from this author > > Posted in Software, 15th October 2009 06:02 GMT > > Two prominent IP lawyers have warned that the all-pervasive General > Public License version 2 (GPLv2) contains legally ambiguous wording that > may be problematic for licensees. Impossible. Peter Koehlmann told us here in COLA that is was "easy" and only "windiots" could not understand it. He is, of course, quite insane. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
