From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 1025b4,1d8ab55e71d08f3d
X-Google-Attributes: gid1025b4,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,1efdd369be089610
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: GLADE and GPL (was: what DOES the GPL really say?)
Date: 1997/07/01
Message-ID: <dewar.867813323@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 253996619
References: <m2oh8ydzt8.fsf@devo.ridgenet.net> <dewar.867338556@merv>
 <33B2B5C8.41A0@does.not.exist.com> <5ousck$6rj@kiwi.ics.uci.edu>
 <5p0eum$1293$1@prime.imagin.net>
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,gnu.misc.discuss
Date: 1997-07-01T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Dave, I am quoting your original post here

<<I've been following this thread for a little bit, and I'd like to toss
in my opinion (what th' heck, right?).  The significant difference
between the GPL and the ACL is much like the difference between
capitalism and communism*.  The GPL assumes all users are sinners, and
takes the approach of requiring the users to affirm, by usage of
GPL'ed code, that they will not unfairly exploit the free software
they are taking advantage of.  There's all sorts of legal stuff in
there that basically prevents people from exploiting various
loopholes.  The ACL is a more open approach, assuming that people will
not unfairly exploit the software under looser "guidelines" (well, not
really "guidelines", but certainly less onerous than the GPL's terms).
The Library GPL and the "ACT exception" to the LGPL are two licensing
terms that fall between (if the GNU folks will permit me this
comparison) the GPL and the ACL.
>>

It is the above paragraph, which you seem to state as your opinion, that
I regard as highly inaccurate. It is one thing to complain about FUD that
other people are subject to when it comes to the GPL, but if you really
believe what you say above, then you are in the business of generating
this FUD.

There is a big difference between saying "well a lot of people are worried
that the GPL says xxx", and actually saying "xxx" yourself. If you know
the GPL well, then you should reread the above paragraph, and realize
that what it says is plain wrong in more than one respect.

If indeed you are now saying "sorry, this is not my opinion, but it is
what other people seem to think", then that's another matter, but in that
case your original post was, to say the least, confusing and misleading!

By all means argue objectively in favor of one licensing scheme or another,
but please let's not spread rumour and inaccurate inuendo here!