Re: LPPL and source-less distribution
"Michael K. Edwards" <email@example.com> writes:
> 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.
Leviticus 24:16: And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he
shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly
stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when
he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death.
I think stoning has been replaced by flaming nowadays.