Re: GNU License and Computer Break Ins
"Thomas Bushnell, BSG" wrote:
> > Nobody thinks (but you) that the GPL grants to people the right to
> > break into a computer. If you feel betrayed, it's by a
> > misunderstanding; at worst, it's an ambiguous sentence which you read
> > incorrectly
On Thu, May 18, 2000 at 06:32:49AM -0500, Paul Serice wrote:
> I guess I didn't say that too well. I feel betrayed because I thought
> the GPL was about respecting the work of other people. If those people
> only want their work to be used openly, then GPL is the license for
> them (or so I thought). If you want your work used in a different
> manner then just say so. After all, it's your work. Of all the people
> in the world, you should have the largest say regarding how your work
> is used.
[1] I think there are other licenses, besides the GPL, which people use
when they want their works to be used openly. The GPL is probably the
best to guarantee long-term openness for software, but that doesn't mean
that it's the only such license.
[2] I don't think you have grounds for what you're saying about Stallman.
Your insistence that he is doing something shady borders on slander.
> But this is not what GPL is about . . . apparently. Apparently,
> even if the original author wants his or her work used in a certain
> non-GPL-ed way, it doesn't matter. The moral thing to do is to
> disregard the wishes of the author and to copy it anyway -- even in
> violation of laws of a democratic nation.
I see nothing that shows that any laws were violated.
> Disclaimer: To reach the above decision, I have to make a few
> assumptions. First, that in the Wired interview, RMS was talking about
> trading bootlegs. Just listening to the interview, trading bootlegs is
> by far the most obvious interpretation. Of course, I don't know RMS
> like you do. So, I would be grateful for any insight into the correct
> interpretation.
Why don't you ask rms?
> Second, I have to assume that the GPL, written a long time ago, is still
> accurately reflected in Stallman's actions today.
>
> Both of these assumptions seem warranted.
I don't see *any* justification for the assumption that he was illegally
trading anything.
And, since your entire rant seems to be based on the idea that laws are
being broken, I think it's up to you to come up with the details.
--
Raul
Reply to: