Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean

[Rjack]

David Kastrup wrote:
> Rjack <user@example.net> writes:
>
> > David Kastrup wrote:

> > > Rjack <user@example.net> writes:

> > > > amicus_curious wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > The constructions created by any compiler are fairly atomic
> > > > >  in nature and it is unlikely that anyone could make a case
> > > > >  that the compiler output, constructed of some collection 
> > > > > of these constructs based on the programmer's arrangement 
> > > > > of source code syntax and order, would ever be a unique 
> > > > > expression fixed in a media as defined by the copyright 
> > > > > laws. This whole discussion is akin to the arguments in 
> > > > > theology regarding how many angles can dance on the head of
> > > > >  a pin.

> > > > The Free Software Foundation loves to start controversies 
> > > > about matters such as "GCC generated object code" for good 
> > > > reason

> > > You are confused.  The whole point of the explicitly 
> > > relinquished (rather than ascertained) rights is to _quell_ any
> > >  such controversy from the start.  By making explicitly clear 
> > > that the compiled code is not covered by demands derived from 
> > > compiler copyright (by volition of the compiler writers in 
> > > addition to whatever copyright law might or might not dictate),
> > >  users have one thing less to worry about.

> > Sorry, but "confusion" does not reign on my part.
>
> I was just operating under the directive "don't attribute to malice
>  what can be explained by stupidity".
>
> > You missed point of my assertion. This discussion is not 
> > occurring in a neutral context. 
> > http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gcc-exception-faq.html
> >
> > By using terminology such as "explicitly relinquished (rather 
> > than ascertained) rights", you are implying that the GPL, if it 
> > were not for the "exception" stated by the Free Software 
> > Foundation, *would* have legal consequence.

> No.  "could".  As decided by a court of law with judges in whatever
>  good or bad mood.

Which implies the GPL is enforceable. Which it is not.

> > By claiming, "By making explicitly clear that the compiled code 
> > is not covered by demands derived from compiler copyright. . .",
> >  you leave the impression that the compiler license (the GPL) 
> > requirements *are* enforceable in other contexts.
>
> I don't do anything of the sort.  The impression is that people 
> might _fear_ that their might be a reasonable amount of expectation
>  they could go to court for it.  Most people prefer not to go there
>  in the first place, regardless of their chances.  This possible 
> fear is dispelled with regard to stuff compiled by GCC.
>
> > But they aren't.
>
> It is easy for you to say that since you are not an involved party
>  and don't have to fear any damages.  When an involved party, 
> however, states its full intent to relinquish all possibly 
> purported rights and not sue for them, it is one thing less to 
> worry about.

Thank you!

You just summarized the most important reason that people should avoid
the GPL at all costs. "Free Software" is highly restrictive software
and isn't "free" at all. Permissive licensed open source code such as
BSD licensed programs do not carry any baggage related to being hauled
into federal court by a band of wild-eyed zealots who practice
socialism in software licensing as a religion.

> Only an idiot can construe intimidation from a written guarantee 
> not to sue for a possibly contentious issue.

And only a fucking Freetard moron such as yourself could twice fail to
grasp the propaganda method to which I was referring in my original
comment which compared the tactics of creationists to those of the
Free Software Foundation.

Sincerely,
Rjack :)