Re: [Nolug] RMS vs Cisco (Round 1 *ding*ding*)

On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 10:25:05AM -0500, Mark A. Hershberger wrote:
> "Jeremy Sliwinski (mailing list account)" <listbox@unix-boy.com> writes:
>
> > I'm not arguing that a patch and enhancement writer should
> > have rights beyond the code that they actually write.
>
> One of the rights the patch author does not have is the right to
> distribute binaries of the software with his patch applied ??? unless the
> author of the original software has given him that right.
>
> And the GPL gives him that right, but it also demands something in
> return ??? that he publish the source to his patch.
>
> Returning to what started this thread: Cisco does not have the right to
> publish modified binaries of GPLed software without meeting the terms of
> the GPL: releasing the source.
>
> Assuming that Cisco is distributing GPLed binaries without the source,
> they are violating the law. You've indicated that you don't think the
> FSF should win.
>
> Do you think Cisco is above the law?

So what law is this again? In all of the years that I've been in earshot of these arguments, I've never really understood how someone's arbitrary license can be substituted for "the law."

And if you ask me, what I don't like about the GPL is the viral nature and RMS' clear attempt to create the utopia he envisions by "hacking" the system - be it the computer, copyright laws, or unto whom commercial entities find themselves beholden. This is what liberal legal types do in order to create what they think is the idea world - they try to legislate it.

I therefore favor those licenses that permit the most real freedom. And from my naive understanding, among them would be BSD and Public Domain (ala SQLite).

http://www.sqlite.org/copyright.html

Brett

>
> Mark.
> ___________________
> Nolug mailing list
> nolug@nolug.org

-- 
B. Estrade
Louisiana Optical Network Initiative
+1.225.578.1920 aim: bz743
:wq
___________________
Nolug mailing list
nolug@nolug.org