6 Aug
2009
6 Aug
'09
12:55 p.m.
On Thursday 06 August 2009 10:37:49 you wrote:
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Raymond
Martin<laseray(a)gmail.com> wrote:
What you wrote there is essentially meaningless. The GPL is worthless and
has no force according to that. All the power is outside of it and it carries
no weight. I guess that is why the FSF just won a court case against Cisco
for GPL violations. Make sense.
On Thursday 06 August 2009 10:16:34 you wrote:
*sigh*
The answer is not, and cannot be, in the GPL. If you don't understand
why the answer cannot be in the GPL, then you need to think about the
problem more seriously. On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Raymond
Martin<laseray(a)gmail.com> wrote:
That's funny because it is exactly what I think about your refusal to
understand what is written in plain language in the GPL itself. Nonetheless, any
code mixed with GPL code and distributed automatically becomes GPL
regardless of any other distribution of the same code under another
license.
This is quite wrong and, frankly, far more scarily so than mere
misunderstandings about what is actually in the GPL. The fact that
you persist in it despite having had it explained to you several times
shows a serious and potentially dangerous misconception about
copyright, not just about the details of a particular license. I very
much hope there are not many more people out there who share this
misconception.
Now, enough. I am not interested in a discussion with you; I'm
replying only because I don't want to leave the impression in the
archive that this nonsense went uncontested. Not that there's much
chance of that, given the number of people who have tried to correct
you.
Even funnier. You are just proving that you cannot provide any evidence
to contradict the GPL. Provide proof of your claims. The GPL gives proof
of what I claim. You have nothing, thus you resort to silly claims.
Raymond