Re: LPPL and source-less distribution
How can a text get lost? Hmpf.
* Michael ::
> On 6/14/05, Bernhard R. Link <email@example.com> wrote:
> > * Michael K. Edwards <firstname.lastname@example.org> [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
You know I agree with you in many things, but I see one reason:
Diplomacy. With a capital D. The FSF holds the copyright interest
and is responsible for developing and publicizing of a lot of free
software; even if your (harsh) word is accurate, IMHO it would be
more polite any of: "error", "mistaken position", "propaganda"