On 5/17/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As a reminder: I favor the use of the non-crack-smoking GPL on a much > broader basis than it is used today. I would like to see all "open > source" projects, FSF and otherwise, relicensed exclusively under the > GPL so that we can roll up our sleeves and refactor the corpus without > worrying about whose chocolate winds up in whose peanut butter. I > believe that the FSF's bullshitting about copyright law is the main > obstacle to that happening in today's software world.
I'm not convinced that the "crack smoking" argument is relevant, or accurate. So far, my impression of that argument is that it rests very heavily on fine points of phrasing, but it also seems like you apply it rather liberally to anyone who draws different conclusions than you. Your conclusions may or may not be correct -- ultimately, if that's resolved at all, that will be resolved by a judge. In the mean time... I don't really understand what points you are trying to make -- even to know if and when I am presenting something which is even relevant to an argument you are presenting. As a result, I don't understand what it is you're objecting to in the context of the FSF. It seems as if every time I've attempted to restate what seems to be your fundamental point, I've found out that I was incorrect. But, you are very emphatic about how anyone who doesn't draw the same conclusions as you -- be they courts, lawyers, or even merely myself -- has some very derogatory labels applied in those cases. Now, granted, there might be some chance that I and others are indeed smoking crack, even though I myself am unaware of this practice. But that's certainly not the only possibility. There is even the chance that you are incorrect about something or another (though, what that could be seems rather unclear, since I don't know how to test your assertions, nor, in many cases, what they are supposed to mean -- consider the "derivative and collective works are disjoint" as a fairly well discussed example). > No, a license is an individual provision in a contract, whether > explicit or implied. Could you provide a citation on that? This seems to conflict with the usages I'm familiar with, including those in the urls you mentioned at > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/01/msg00621.html You might be correct here about what license terms are and are not, but even if you are I might be drawing the wrong conclusion from your phrasing. I'd be more comfortable if I had this from some official source. Thanks, -- Raul
