Re: LPPL and source-less distribution
On 6/14/05, Bernhard R. Link <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> * Michael K. Edwards <email@example.com> [050613 21:21]:
> > C'mon, Raul. The "crack-smoking GPL" refers to an interpretation
> > ("non-contract license", "functional use results in a derivative
> > work") that I and others have demonstrated to have no basis in law
> > [...]
> You have expressed this your opinion multiple times. I think your
> increasing use of words like words and phrases like "crack-smoking",
> "deceitful" etc make a good point about how 'convincing' your
> demonstrations were.
Increasing? Not particularly. If it really bothers you, I'm happy to
drop "crack-smoking", and say I am "pro-GPL-as-an-instrument-of law".
But with respect to "deceit": Eben Moglen has engaged for years in
deceit about the nature of copyright law and licenses. I see no
reason not to call it by its name.
I'm not sure what point you think you're making about what is or isn't
convincing. If you're not convinced, that's fine; I don't feel
compelled to convince everyone.
> > It wouldn't be the first time that a much-needed reform got put
> > off for an extra century because the people carrying the banner of
> > reform behaved in a manner repugnant to those who understood that the
> > existing system, while flawed, was better than anarchy.
> Ah, so we are not only crack-smoking but also targeting anarchy?
Are you not acquainted with Mr. Moglen's essay "Anarchism Triumphant:
Free Software and the Death of Copyright"? You personally may not be
advocating anarchy, but that is precisely what Mr. Moglen professes to