"Thomas Bushnell, BSG" wrote: > > Nobody thinks (but you) that the GPL grants to people the right to > > break into a computer. If you feel betrayed, it's by a > > misunderstanding; at worst, it's an ambiguous sentence which you read > > incorrectly
On Thu, May 18, 2000 at 06:32:49AM -0500, Paul Serice wrote: > I guess I didn't say that too well. I feel betrayed because I thought > the GPL was about respecting the work of other people. If those people > only want their work to be used openly, then GPL is the license for > them (or so I thought). If you want your work used in a different > manner then just say so. After all, it's your work. Of all the people > in the world, you should have the largest say regarding how your work > is used. [1] I think there are other licenses, besides the GPL, which people use when they want their works to be used openly. The GPL is probably the best to guarantee long-term openness for software, but that doesn't mean that it's the only such license. [2] I don't think you have grounds for what you're saying about Stallman. Your insistence that he is doing something shady borders on slander. > But this is not what GPL is about . . . apparently. Apparently, > even if the original author wants his or her work used in a certain > non-GPL-ed way, it doesn't matter. The moral thing to do is to > disregard the wishes of the author and to copy it anyway -- even in > violation of laws of a democratic nation. I see nothing that shows that any laws were violated. > Disclaimer: To reach the above decision, I have to make a few > assumptions. First, that in the Wired interview, RMS was talking about > trading bootlegs. Just listening to the interview, trading bootlegs is > by far the most obvious interpretation. Of course, I don't know RMS > like you do. So, I would be grateful for any insight into the correct > interpretation. Why don't you ask rms? > Second, I have to assume that the GPL, written a long time ago, is still > accurately reflected in Stallman's actions today. > > Both of these assumptions seem warranted. I don't see *any* justification for the assumption that he was illegally trading anything. And, since your entire rant seems to be based on the idea that laws are being broken, I think it's up to you to come up with the details. -- Raul
