Re: [PROPOSAL] Full text of GPL must be included
At 09:44 pm +0100 on November 30, 2000, Nils Lohner wrote:
> - 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
> - 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
> ...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
> >_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
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."
> 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
> 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.