Re: GNAT GPL 2005: Too clever by half?

["Chad R. Meiners" <chad.rmeiners@gmail.com>]

From: Georg Bauhaus
<quote>
That's contained in the smiley.
People tend to sell others' work as their own. I'm not saying you
do. Some licenses permit this, some licenses ask to not mention,
others require that you mention others' work.
In case people complain that they cannot "overwrite" the terms
and conditions of the GPLicense with their own, it is only fair
to ask whether they intend to sell others' work as their own.
I did use the word "ask" knowing that I didn't really
ask in the sense of asking, asking you not to question my use
of asking on the ground of questionable monosemy.
<\quote>

Oh come on.  I haven't even complained about not being able to
overwrite the GPL.  You are jumping the gun and assuming that I have
all these problems with the GPL.  Just because I am critical of RMS
doesn't mean that I am against various projects that he works on.  I am
an avid user of emacs for example.

However, the GPL doesn't prevent people from stealing your labor.  It
might prevent someone from taking you labor and hiding it under a
bucket, but it does not prevent thief.

<quote>
Natural language not only invites interpretation, the fact that
it cannot be formalized, let alone be coverd by {T, F}, is central
to some of the most precious pieces of human heritage.
<\quote>

Just because we can't formalize natural language does not mean that we
do not need to be careful when interpreting it.  If anything it means
that we need to be more precise, and that we should ask for
clarification more often.

This is why I am critical of statements like "The GPL simply prevents
others from stealing your labor."  Such statements are so imprecise
that they are useless.  Sure it sounds like great propaganda, but the
statement isn't actually true.

If you want to discuss this more, let's do it over email.

-CRM