Re: GPL traitor !

[JEDIDIAH]

On 2009-05-05, Erik Funkenbusch <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 5 May 2009 13:01:41 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> After takin' a swig o' grog, Erik Funkenbusch belched out
>>   this bit o' wisdom:
>> 
>>> On Tue, 5 May 2009 07:13:19 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>
>>>> 
>>>> Nice summary of standard legal procedure, corner cases, and descriptions of
>>>> uninformed people.
>>>> 
>>>> You know, the tip-of-the-iceberg stuff that people focus on for purposes of
>>>> FUD, while the vast majority /depend/ on the GPL.
>>>
>>> None of which supports Alan's argument that nobody can honestly
>>> misunderstand the GPL.
>> 
>> Nobody can honestly not understand the main meanings of the GPL.
>> 
>> That being said, version 3 is a bit more difficult to follow.
>
> ahh.. now you move the goalpost.. the "main meaning".  The main meaning is
> certainly clear, but the details are where the trouble lies, and where most

    Not really. The only real question is what constitutes a "derivative work".

    There are certain people that have an interest in "misunderstanding this".

    These are typically people that are interested in creating derivatives 
without
having any sort of obligations or requirements to acknowledge ownership of the 
original work. They confuse "their work" with the work of others.

    This is a common sort of problem with toddlers.

> people don't understand or interpret differently.


-- 

It is not true that Microsoft doesn't innovate. 

        They brought us the email virus.
                                                     
        In my Atari days, such a notion would have             |||
        been considered a complete absurdity.                 / | \