Re: [PROPOSAL] Full text of GPL must be included
On 30 Nov 2000, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> John Galt <email@example.com> writes:
> > By law, what is not explicitly permitted is prohibited. You are permitted
> > ONLY to make verbatim copies, you are not allowed to use it as a basis for
> > your own license because there is no explicit permission for it. In fact
> > there is an explicit denial of the right to make any change at all to
> > it, one that is not delimited by further discussion, so is therefore
> > absolute by law.
> Copyright law does not extend so far; contracts in general are not
Please notice that what I posted was the copyright notice of the GPL. Are
you saying that the header of the GPL is invalid? Where a part of a
statement is proven wrong, the rest must be suspect, so why are we having
this discussion if the GPL itself may be invalid?
Customer: "I'm running Windows '98" Tech: "Yes." Customer:
"My computer isn't working now." Tech: "Yes, you said that."
Who is John Galt? firstname.lastname@example.org, that's who!