6 Aug
2009
6 Aug
'09
12:37 p.m.
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Raymond Martin<laseray(a)gmail.com> wrote:
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.
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.
Chris
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.