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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> 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.
