Re: Another way of thinking of the Chinese dissident test
David Turner <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 17:58, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > David Turner <email@example.com> writes:
> > > But what say you about Section 4, a section whose sole purpose is to
> > > make the GPL more easily enforceable? This section couldn't even exist
> > > without copyright law.
> > It only makes it more easily enforceable, and it operates purely as a
> > stick. I don't think it has ever been actually invoked.
> What about MySQL v. Nusphere?
> The FSF mentions it in letters the FSF sends to corporate GPL violators,
First, it's entirely unclear what is actually restricted. Any future
version of the software? Or only that particular copy? All GPL'd
software ever? All GPL'd software from that particular author?
Mentioning it in letters is using it AS A STICK. Again, I get the
feeling that my words pass over your eyes without getting much actual
attention, as if I put phrases in (like, say, "recipient OF THE CODE")
for my own thrills, and not intending any actual meaning for them.
Use as a stick is: "I might hit you with this!" and is entirely
separate from actually ever hitting anyone.
And yet, the whole point is that it is *not a restriction*, for the
simple reason that imposes nothing *additional* to the other terms,
such that you could ever meet all the other terms and somehow fail to
meet it. If you meet all the other terms, then it can't even be
applied. For this reason, it is not a restriction.