GPL propaganda - Linux

This is a discussion on GPL propaganda - Linux ; Rjack wrote: > So what? He made an ass of himself over legal matters too....

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 46

Thread: GPL propaganda

  1. Re: GPL propaganda

    Rjack wrote:
    > So what?


    He made an ass of himself over legal matters too.

  2. Re: GPL propaganda

    Andrew Halliwell wrote:

    >Why all the GPL FUD "jack"?
    >If you don't agree with the GPL, don't try to distribute any software under
    >it.
    >
    >simple as that.


    He's a troll. Simple as that.


  3. Re: GPL propaganda

    chrisv wrote:
    > Andrew Halliwell wrote:
    >
    >> Why all the GPL FUD "jack"? If you don't agree with the GPL,
    >> don't try to distribute any software under it.
    >>
    >> simple as that.

    >
    > He's a troll. Simple as that.
    >


    Have a nice day Andrew!
    _ _
    |R| |R|
    |j| /^^^\ |j|
    _|a|_ (| "o" |) _|a|_
    _| |c| | _ (_---_) _ | |c| |_
    | | |k| |' | _| |_ | `| |k| | |
    | | / \ | |
    \ / / /(. .)\ \ \ /
    \ / / / | . | \ \ \ /
    \ \/ / ||Y|| \ \/ /
    \__/ || || \__/
    () ()
    || ||
    ooO Ooo

    Sincerely,
    Rjack

  4. Re: GPL propaganda

    On 2008-09-26, Rjack wrote:
    > JEDIDIAH wrote:
    >> On 2008-09-26, Rjack wrote:
    >>> Andrew Halliwell wrote:
    >>>> Rjack wrote:
    >>>>> The questions concerning enforceability of the provisions in the GPL
    >>>>> will occur in the federal courts according to prevailing law. (I do
    >>>>> not consider non-US jurisdictions.) Arguments concerning
    >>>>> enforceability should be grounded in references to prevailing
    >>>>> federal statutes and case law concerning the licensing of
    >>>>> intellectual property.
    >>>> Why all the GPL FUD "jack"?
    >>>> If you don't agree with the GPL, don't try to distribute any software under
    >>>> it.
    >>>>
    >>>> simple as that.
    >>> 1) Never have (distributed).
    >>>
    >>> 2) Do care about GPL advocates stealing other people's exclusive
    >>> rights with an illegal copyright license.

    >>
    >> Yet the likes of Oracle and EA seem to manage well enough despite
    >> of all of your bitching and moaning. This "problem" of yours only ever
    >> manifests itself whenever you try to take someone else's property and
    >> treat it as if it were your own.

    >
    > You mean like using the illegal GPL?
    >
    >>
    >> Avoid doing that and all of your ranting becomes completely moot.
    >>
    >> Use someone else's code in a commercial product and you better be
    >> prepared to read and understand the fine print. Big news there (not)!
    >>

    >
    > It's none of a GPL licensor's concern how I use someone else's
    > commercial product.


    It is if you treat their property as if it were your own
    exclusive little plaything. This is true of property law notions
    in general. It's not merely limited to copyright or the GPL.

    GPL authors are no different from any other 3rd party
    software provider in this regard. The only "point" of your
    rant is perhaps that idiots such as yourself shouldn't treat
    GPL works as public domain and should instead treat them in
    the same manner they would treat any other 3rd party software.

    Read the license. Avoid the product if you don't agree
    to the terms. It's really no great mystery.

    EA and Oracle do well enough. Why can't you?

    --
    My macintosh runs Ubuntu. |||
    / | \

    Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.usenet.com

  5. Re: GPL propaganda

    Rjack wrote:
    > chrisv wrote:
    >> Andrew Halliwell wrote:
    >>
    >>> Why all the GPL FUD "jack"? If you don't agree with the GPL,
    >>> don't try to distribute any software under it.
    >>>
    >>> simple as that.

    >>
    >> He's a troll. Simple as that.
    >>

    >
    > Have a nice day Andrew!


    Oh, I plan to...
    But you need to learn how to read.
    You were replying to chrisv.
    --
    | spike1@freenet.co.uk | "I'm alive!!! I can touch! I can taste! |
    | Andrew Halliwell BSc | I can SMELL!!! KRYTEN!!! Unpack Rachel and |
    | in | get out the puncture repair kit!" |
    | Computer Science | Arnold Judas Rimmer- Red Dwarf |

  6. Re: GPL propaganda

    Andrew Halliwell wrote:
    > Rjack wrote:
    >> chrisv wrote:
    >>> Andrew Halliwell wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Why all the GPL FUD "jack"? If you don't agree with the GPL,
    >>>> don't try to distribute any software under it.
    >>>>
    >>>> simple as that.
    >>> He's a troll. Simple as that.
    >>>

    >> Have a nice day Andrew!

    >
    > Oh, I plan to...
    > But you need to learn how to read.
    > You were replying to chrisv.


    Sorry Andrew. . .
    Years of attempting to decipher script-kiddie dialects
    has weakened my eyes.

    Sincerely,
    Rjack

  7. Re: GPL propaganda

    Rjack wrote:
    >> Oh, I plan to...
    >> But you need to learn how to read.
    >> You were replying to chrisv.

    >
    > Sorry Andrew. . .
    > Years of attempting to decipher script-kiddie dialects
    > has weakened my eyes.


    Just as well I only speak in plain english or you'd be blind by now.
    --
    | spike1@freenet.co.uk | |
    | Andrew Halliwell BSc | "ARSE! GERLS!! DRINK! DRINK! DRINK!!!" |
    | in | "THAT WOULD BE AN ECUMENICAL MATTER!...FECK!!!! |
    | Computer Science | - Father Jack in "Father Ted" |

  8. Re: GPL propaganda

    RonB writes:

    > On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 19:38:23 -0500, Rjack wrote:
    >
    >> 2) Do care about GPL advocates stealing other people's exclusive
    >> rights with an illegal copyright license.

    >
    > GPL advocates copyright their own code, which is their right under the
    > GPL -- or don't you agree with that?


    Actually, I don't agree. GPL advocates _have_ copyright to their own
    code, which is their right as a citizen of one of the Berne convention
    undersigning countries. Nothing to do with the GPL up to here. They
    may choose to _license_ their work to others under the GPL (or any other
    license they choose). The GPL does not give them any right, using it
    exercises it. When licensing their copyrighted works to others, they
    grant those others certain rights. Those others may avail themselves of
    those rights or refrain from it, at their choice.

    > If someone steals someone else's rights, than it's not an issue of the
    > GPL, but an issue of standard copyright law. The benefits of using the
    > GPL license is that you get to use a lot of code, for free. To do so,
    > you have to share your code. Is that too complicated for you? Is it
    > somehow unfair in your estimation?


    It is a highly inaccurate description of the situation.

    --
    David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

  9. Re: GPL propaganda

    David Kastrup writes:

    > RonB writes:
    >
    >> On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 19:38:23 -0500, Rjack wrote:
    >>
    >>> 2) Do care about GPL advocates stealing other people's exclusive
    >>> rights with an illegal copyright license.

    >>
    >> GPL advocates copyright their own code, which is their right under the
    >> GPL -- or don't you agree with that?

    >
    > Actually, I don't agree. GPL advocates _have_ copyright to their own
    > code, which is their right as a citizen of one of the Berne convention
    > undersigning countries. Nothing to do with the GPL up to here. They
    > may choose to _license_ their work to others under the GPL (or any other
    > license they choose). The GPL does not give them any right, using it
    > exercises it. When licensing their copyrighted works to others, they
    > grant those others certain rights. Those others may avail themselves of
    > those rights or refrain from it, at their choice.
    >
    >> If someone steals someone else's rights, than it's not an issue of the
    >> GPL, but an issue of standard copyright law. The benefits of using the
    >> GPL license is that you get to use a lot of code, for free. To do so,
    >> you have to share your code. Is that too complicated for you? Is it
    >> somehow unfair in your estimation?

    >
    > It is a highly inaccurate description of the situation.


    Uh oh.

    Prepare to be "COLA"d. In COLA you are either 100% with them or 100%
    against them. Prepare to be bored to death by Mark Kent and the gang who
    will now label you a "Wintroll" and harass you for years.

    RonB is, by the way, one of many "nyms" owned by a certain COLA leading
    light.

    Enjoy!

    --
    "It's perhaps inevitable that some professionals would paint their status
    as being somehow superior to those of the amateurs, after all, they're
    trying to get paid."
    -- Mark Kent mouthing off in comp.os.linux.advocacy, comp.sys.mac.advocacy, comp.unix.solaris

  10. Re: GPL propaganda

    Rjack writes:

    >Rahul Dhesi wrote:
    >> Rjack writes:
    >>
    >> [ more anti-GPL blather, under yet another subject heading ]
    >>
    >> Rjack, I notice that as soon as you lose the argument under one subject
    >> heading, you restart it with a new subject heading. Do you really think
    >> that by repeating the same thing, you will get a different result?


    >What argument is that Rahul? That a copyright license is a contract?


    >If I "lost" who were the judges? The sound of one hand clapping
    >is not very impressive Rahul.


    If you really want to have this discussion, why don't you pick one
    subject heading and keep it there? Then maybe you will get answers to
    your questions, even meaningless ones like the above. And you won't have
    to repeatedly post the same irrelevant out-of-context quotes.

    On the other hand, if you are just trolling, then you will feel the need
    to post repeatedly under new subject headings, lest the troll effect
    fizzle out.
    --
    Rahul
    http://rahul.rahul.net/

  11. Re: GPL propaganda

    Rjack, trolling, stated:

    >It never fails to amaze me that you socialists can find an argument
    >to justify illegal actions.


    Readers may wish to look at this:

    http://www.freeos.com/articles/4133/
    --
    Rahul
    http://rahul.rahul.net/

  12. Re: GPL propaganda

    [snips]

    On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 20:53:40 -0500, JEDIDIAH wrote:

    > On 2008-09-26, Rjack wrote:


    >> 2) Do care about GPL advocates stealing other people's exclusive rights
    >> with an illegal copyright license.


    > Yet the likes of Oracle and EA seem to manage well enough despite
    > of all of your bitching and moaning. This "problem" of yours only ever
    > manifests itself whenever you try to take someone else's property and
    > treat it as if it were your own.


    I've got Herr Bonehead killfiled, but I happened to see this response to
    it. He's asserting an "illegal copyright license"; is he actually
    suggesting that the GPL results in some sort of illegality? That if I
    use GPL'd code in my own app, I'm somehow stealing something from the
    original writer? Is he unaware that the original developer _chose_ to
    release it as GPL, knowing full well it would be re-used in other
    applications?

    Or is this some other argument?


  13. Re: GPL propaganda

    Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
    > Or is this some other argument?


    There's a "misuse of copyright" principle which Some People
    dream about applying to GPLed software. It will never happen.

  14. Re: GPL propaganda

    Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
    > [snips]
    >
    > On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 20:53:40 -0500, JEDIDIAH wrote:
    >
    >> On 2008-09-26, Rjack wrote:

    >
    >>> 2) Do care about GPL advocates stealing other people's exclusive rights
    >>> with an illegal copyright license.

    >
    >> Yet the likes of Oracle and EA seem to manage well enough despite
    >> of all of your bitching and moaning. This "problem" of yours only ever
    >> manifests itself whenever you try to take someone else's property and
    >> treat it as if it were your own.

    >
    > I've got Herr Bonehead killfiled, but I happened to see this response to
    > it. He's asserting an "illegal copyright license"; is he actually
    > suggesting that the GPL results in some sort of illegality? That if I
    > use GPL'd code in my own app, I'm somehow stealing something from the
    > original writer? Is he unaware that the original developer _chose_ to
    > release it as GPL, knowing full well it would be re-used in other
    > applications?
    >
    > Or is this some other argument?
    >



    >Is he unaware that the original developer _chose_ to
    > release it as GPL, knowing full well it would be re-used in other
    > applications?


    The state of mind, "awareness", is irrelevant to the assertion of
    illegality. The language of
    the license speaks for itself in a court of law. It is the legal
    interpretation of the license by the
    court that determines the illegality of things -- not the wishes of
    socialist boneheads like you.

    Why not follow the implications of your killfile ? Close your eyes
    moron. Replying exposes
    the depth of your ignorance and wastes bandwidth.

    Sincerely,
    Rjack





  15. Re: GPL propaganda

    On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 14:47:18 -0400, Hyman Rosen wrote:

    > Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
    >> Or is this some other argument?

    >
    > There's a "misuse of copyright" principle which Some People dream about
    > applying to GPLed software. It will never happen.


    Er... since GPLed software is no more or less copyrighted than any other
    piece of software, wouldn't such arguments end up applying to all
    software? At least stuff which hasn't had the copyright expire?


  16. Re: GPL propaganda

    Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
    > On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 14:47:18 -0400, Hyman Rosen wrote:
    >
    >> Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
    >>> Or is this some other argument?

    >>
    >> There's a "misuse of copyright" principle which Some People dream about
    >> applying to GPLed software. It will never happen.

    >
    > Er... since GPLed software is no more or less copyrighted than any other
    > piece of software, wouldn't such arguments end up applying to all
    > software? At least stuff which hasn't had the copyright expire?
    >

    Which at this point in time is all software ever written.
    And will be for at least another 50 years.
    --
    | spike1@freenet.co.uk | |
    | Andrew Halliwell BSc | "The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't |
    | in | suck is probably the day they start making |
    | Computer science | vacuum cleaners" - Ernst Jan Plugge |

  17. Re: GPL propaganda


    Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
    >
    > On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 14:47:18 -0400, Hyman Rosen wrote:
    >
    > > Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
    > >> Or is this some other argument?

    > >
    > > There's a "misuse of copyright" principle which Some People dream about
    > > applying to GPLed software. It will never happen.

    >
    > Er... since GPLed software is no more or less copyrighted than any other
    > piece of software, wouldn't such arguments end up applying to all
    > software? At least stuff which hasn't had the copyright expire?


    http://www.usfca.edu/law/determann/s...ions060403.pdf

    -------
    b) Copyright Misuse

    By imposing GPL § 2(b) on licensees, copyright owners try to magnify
    their rights beyond those sanctioned by the Copyright Act in two
    different ways. First, Section 103 of the Copyright Act allocates
    ownership rights to authorized derivative works to the author to
    incentivize further investment in additional creativity.274 In contrast,
    Section 2(b) of the GPL, requires creators of derivative works to
    forfeit their exclusion rights and any chance to generate licensing
    revenue.275 Second, if the term “derived work” were found to encompass
    more than “derivative works” and included, for example, compilations and
    other forms of software combinations, Section 2(b) of the GPL would seek
    to prohibit activities that Section 106 of the Copyright has not
    reserved for copyright owners and thus exponentially increase the impact
    caused by the first copyright magnifying mechanism.276

    Given the fact that copyright misuse is an equitable concept under U.S.
    law, it is difficult to predict if and how a court would apply this
    doctrine in the context of the GPL. On one hand, the non-profit status
    and idealistic goals pursued by the proponents and original adopters of
    the GPL may sway courts in favor of the GPL. On the other hand, the
    “copyleft” policy manifested in the GPL seems a more direct attack on
    the delicate balance between access and protection in the Copyright
    Act277 than any other licensing practice that has so far caused courts
    to find copyright misuse.278 In fact, the intended objective behind
    Section 2(b) of the GPL is to eliminate the effects of copyright
    protection for computer programs and generally replace it by the rules
    of the GPL.279 This flies in the face of the many decisions by U.S.
    courts that found it necessary to protect economic interests of software
    copyright owners who pursued proprietary licensing models.280 Also, more
    and more companies use the GPL for purposes other than idealism. If
    courts enforce clauses like Section 2(b) of the GPL, they would probably
    also have to accept it if proprietary software companies start
    prohibiting combinations of their programs with other software beyond
    the boundaries of the Copyright Act. This could have potentially
    significant implications for interoperability.

    Thus, for purposes of U.S. copyright law, Section 2(b) of the GPL seems
    to raise significant issues under the doctrine of copyright misuse,
    particularly, if it were interpreted to cover more than derivative works
    as defined by the Copyright Act.
    -------

    Quoting from "Open Source Licensing: Virus or Virtue?":

    -------
    A successful misuse defense bars the misuser from
    prevailing against anyone on an action for infringement
    of the misused intellectual property, even against
    defendants who have not been harmed or affected by the
    misuse.[76]

    The misuse doctrine was judicially created, first in the
    patent context. Only recently has the misuse doctrine been
    extended to copyrights, building on the rich misuse history
    in the patent law.[77] Importantly, most courts have found
    misuse without requiring a finding of antitrust liability.
    [78] Thus, market power is unnecessary, as is any analysis
    of the competitive and anticompetitive impacts of the
    provision.[79]

    The courts have yet to analyze a copyleft provision for
    misuse, but the courts have addressed an analogous
    provision—the grantback. A grantback provision requires
    that a licensee of intellectual property grant back to
    the licensor a license or ownership in creations made by
    the licensee. The typical grantback provision requires
    that the licensee give the licensor a nonexclusive license
    to any improvements or derivatives that the licensee
    creates based on the original licensed property. The idea
    is that the licensee would not have been able to make the
    improvement or derivative without permission of the
    licensor or at least access to the original; thus, the
    licensor should not be blocked by an improvement or
    derivative he and his intellectual property helped create.
    Giving the license back encourages licensors to license,
    since it mitigates the risk of becoming blocked by
    derivative intellectual property. Like a grantback,
    copyleft requires the licensee to license back its
    improvements. The copyleft provision is more expansive,
    though.

    [...]

    Although grantbacks have not come up in the copyright
    misuse arena, they have in the patent context—and as we
    have seen, the patent misuse cases form the underpinning
    for the copyright misuse doctrine. Courts have found that
    grantback clauses extending to improvements are not misuse,
    because the licensee in some sense developed the
    improvement with the help of the original patent. Where
    grantback clauses extend to preexisting or unrelated
    patents, however, courts have found patent misuse. Where
    "the scope of [licensee's] 'improvements' and inventions
    required to be assigned to [the patent licensor] extended
    far beyond the scope of [the] basic patent [licensed by
    licensor] the effect was to extend unlawfully its monopoly
    and thus result in patent misuse."[80] Plainly, the Patent
    Act does not give the patent owner rights to other unrelated
    patents, and using a patent to obtain such rights exceeds
    the scope of the patent.

    Similarly, the Copyright Act's grant of rights does not
    extend to unrelated works or preexisting (and therefore
    necessarily nonderivative) works, and using the copyright
    license to extract such rights exceeds the scope of the
    copyright grant. This may constitute copyright misuse. A
    license to a copyrighted work on condition that any work
    with which it is combined or shares data must be licensed
    back to the licensor—and the entire world—on the specific
    terms the licensor mandates, is beyond the scope of the
    copyright in the originally licensed work. Yet this is
    what the GPL apparently requires. The copyleft provision
    purports to infect independent, separate works that are
    not derivative of the open source code, and requires
    that such independent works be licensed back to the
    licensor and the entire world under the GPL. The Copyright
    Act does not give the copyright owner rights to such
    independent nonderivative works. Attempting to extract
    such rights exceeds the scope of the copyright. The fact
    that the GPL mandates that the license be free and open is
    irrelevant; as explained above, misuse doctrine does not
    require an analysis of market share, or a weighing of the
    competitive and anticompetitive effects of the provision.

    If the copyleft provision constitutes misuse, then the
    plaintiff's copyrights in the open source program are
    unenforceable until the misuse is purged.[81] As a result,
    at least with respect to the code contributed by any
    plaintiff, the defendant (and anyone else) could infringe
    the copyright with impunity, including taking the code
    private for his own commercial ends.[82]
    -------

    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.)

  18. Re: GPL propaganda

    Alexander Terekhov wrote:
    > b) Copyright Misuse
    >
    > By imposing GPL § 2(b) on licensees, copyright owners try to magnify
    > their rights beyond those sanctioned by the Copyright Act in two
    > different ways.


    This should be good...

    > First, Section 103 of the Copyright Act allocates
    > ownership rights to authorized derivative works to the author to
    > incentivize further investment in additional creativity.274 In contrast,
    > Section 2(b) of the GPL, requires creators of derivative works to
    > forfeit their exclusion rights and any chance to generate licensing
    > revenue.


    In order to use some copyrighted work to produce a derived work, do you not
    require authorisation from the original owner?

    You can't just suddenly go and write harry potter and the curse of atlantis,
    say, without asking for permission from J.K.Rowling, even if the only parts
    of her work are the character's. And she can grant permission and impose
    terms and conditions on their use if she so wishes.

    GPL is just that. It is granting of permission to use works, modify them
    etc, but terms and conditions are implicit in the license.

    Don't agree with the GPL? Don't use the GPL'd work to produce a derivative.
    Or ask the owner for an alternative license, He may or may not grant you
    one.

    > 275 Second, if the term ?derived work? were found to encompass
    > more than ?derivative works? and included, for example, compilations and
    > other forms of software combinations, Section 2(b) of the GPL would seek
    > to prohibit activities that Section 106 of the Copyright has not
    > reserved for copyright owners and thus exponentially increase the impact
    > caused by the first copyright magnifying mechanism.276


    If a compilation is released containing software, only that software in the
    compilation that IS gpl is bound BY the gpl.

    That's what a linux distribution is ffs. It's a compilation.
    And every distro I've ever used has had software that uses multiple
    licenses.
    Apache, XF86, Xorg, BSD, Opera, OpenOffice, Firefox, GIMP.

    > Similarly, the Copyright Act's grant of rights does not
    > extend to unrelated works or preexisting (and therefore
    > necessarily nonderivative) works,


    What a surprise, neither does the GPL.

    > and using the copyright
    > license to extract such rights exceeds the scope of the
    > copyright grant.


    And what a surprise, it exceeds the scope of the GPL too.
    No GPL license ever written attempts to "wrest licensing rights" from
    non-related software.

    > This may constitute copyright misuse.


    How?
    Show one single example of how the GPL can "spread" to non-related software?
    Just one.

    Someone is terribly, terribly stupid. Aren't they, Alex?
    Someone has yet to grasp what the GPL actually means... Haven't they, Alex?
    That's you that is.
    --
    | spike1@freenet.co.uk | Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
    | | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
    | Andrew Halliwell BSc | operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
    | in |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
    | Computer Science | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |

  19. Re: GPL propaganda

    On 2008-10-08, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
    >
    > Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
    >>
    >> On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 14:47:18 -0400, Hyman Rosen wrote:
    >>
    >> > Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
    >> >> Or is this some other argument?
    >> >
    >> > There's a "misuse of copyright" principle which Some People dream about
    >> > applying to GPLed software. It will never happen.

    >>
    >> Er... since GPLed software is no more or less copyrighted than any other
    >> piece of software, wouldn't such arguments end up applying to all
    >> software? At least stuff which hasn't had the copyright expire?

    >
    > http://www.usfca.edu/law/determann/s...ions060403.pdf
    >
    > -------
    > b) Copyright Misuse
    >
    > By imposing GPL § 2(b) on licensees, copyright owners try to magnify
    > their rights beyond those sanctioned by the Copyright Act in two
    > different ways. First, Section 103 of the Copyright Act allocates
    > ownership rights to authorized derivative works to the author to
    > incentivize further investment in additional creativity.274 In contrast,
    > Section 2(b) of the GPL, requires creators of derivative works to
    > forfeit their exclusion rights and any chance to generate licensing


    Yup. Pay to play.

    [deletia]

    Don't like it? Don't sponge off of someone else's work.

    Works equally well for "literature".

    "Wah, Wah! Mommy, that mean person won't let me mooch off of them."

    --
    Nothing quite gives you an understanding of mysql's |||
    popularity as does an attempt to do some simple date / | \
    manipulations in postgres.

    Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.usenet.com

  20. Re: GPL propaganda

    [snips]

    On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 14:24:37 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

    > By imposing GPL § 2(b) on licensees, copyright owners try to magnify
    > their rights beyond those sanctioned by the Copyright


    By definition, anything which grants _more_ options to you than copyright
    does cannot be the limiting mechanism you're arguing. The *most*
    limiting mechanism possible in such cases is to simply leave the work
    copyrighted and not apply *any* exclusions, exceptions or licenses.
    Under that, you have absolutely no right whatsoever to take my code and
    use it in your own app, and if you do, I can sue your ass to hell and
    gone, under that very copyright law you're talking about.

    The GPL grants you *more* freedoms than copyright. It allows you to use
    code which you could not, otherwise, have used at all. How you can go
    from having _no_ right to use the code, to having every right to use the
    code, and complain someone is infringing on your rights is beyond me. In
    a sane person's view, when their rights are increased, this is cause for
    rejoicing, not complaining.

    Your basic problem seems to be you don't like the terms of the license,
    the restrictions it places on you. Well, here's news for you, skippy,
    nobody is forcing you to use GPLed code. If you don't like the license,
    just develop equivalent code yourself, then you don't have to deal with
    the GPL at all.

    Happy now? Good. So you'll be too busy writing your own, non-GPLed
    versions of the relevant code, to bother popping in here to whine about
    the GPL anymore, right?


+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast