[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [PROPOSAL] Full text of GPL must be included



At 09:44 pm +0100 on November 30, 2000, Nils Lohner wrote:

> Congratulations!
> - you just made every CVS archive unusable because every source file that 
> has a license term in it needs to be checked out with a complete copy of the 
> GPL.
> - you made apt-get <package> unusable unless it too ships the GPL with every 
> package, or every single package includes it.
> - you made every binary program (see 'ls' example) copy from one computer to 
> the next a violation because the license is not transferred with it.
> - you made every email of a code or header under GPL file be mailed with a 
> license.
> 
> ...and probably a bunch of other things, but I think you get the point.

_I_ made these things unusable?  I think not.  Please don't shoot the
messenger.

> >_Yes_ its absurd.  But that's not my problem; I didn't write the license.
> >
>   Sorry, but your interpretation IMO is what's absurd.  You didn't write it, 
> but you are _interpreting_ it, and an interpretation is subjective 
> (depending on who's doing the interpretation) and not objective.
> 
> The GPL is not ridiculous, and tries to protect the freedom of the code and 
> ensure the user knows what's up.  If you do 'ls --version' and have a name 
> of the license or a pointer to it (URL or file) you're ensuring what the GPL 
> wants to ensure: freedom and knowledge thereof, and the means of finding out 
> more.

Great, but none of the above and none of the below refutes my
interpretation.  If you think I'm wrong please quote the GPL and explain
why.  I would love to be proven wrong (and probably will be :-). Just
don't resort to ad hominem attacks ("people who have nothing better to
do...") and claims to the effect of "I don't like the consequences of
that interpretation, so I won't accept it."

	brian

> In message <20001130122722.B6329@adsl-63-195-123-115.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net>,
> Brian Frederick Kimball writes:
> >[Brian Mays wrote]:
> >> We do give them a copy of the GPL.  Its up to them to take it.
> >
> >I still don't think "making available" is the same as "giving".
> 
> I need to copy of 'ls' because mine is messed up.  I copy it from another 
> machine, which has the GPL on it.  Are you forcing me to take a copy of the 
> GPL, because if not the owner of the system I'm taking it from is in 
> violation??!?  I know I'm available to take it, and I know where to find it. 
>  Gimme a break.  A large one, please.  This is the real world where things 
> need to _work_ and not get picked apart by people who have nothing better to 
> do.
> 
> The GPL gives freedom and wants to ensure people know about it.  If it's to 
> be taken literally to the extent you want it to be, no free software project 
> would ever exist because they'd be so freaking paranoid about the licensing 
> violations they'd be afraid to code (or not have time to because they're 
> busy copying licenses).
> 
> Please, think about what you're doing here and consider the implications 
> before arguing this direction further, and consider the fact that your 
> interpretation is just that: an interpretation.



Reply to: