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: David Masterson Subject: Re: what DOES the GPL really say? Date: 1997/08/09 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 263170068 Sender: david@batcave.bungi.com (David Masterson) References: <5ph4g5$sbs$1@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> <5pim4l$5m3$1@news.nyu.edu> <5ptv7r$4e2$1@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> <5pu5va$64o$1@news.nyu.edu> <5qdof6$iav$1@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> <33D6FA2B.9B7@ix.netcom.com> <33E00855.2BA7@ix.netcom.com> Organization: Programmer at Large Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,gnu.misc.discuss Date: 1997-08-09T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: David Kastrup writes: > Ronald Cole writes: > > > And then there's this tidbit from Stallman from the same faq: > > > > "The legal meaning of the GNU copyleft is less important than the > > spirit, which is that Emacs is a free software project and that work > > pertaining to Emacs should also be free software. "Free" means that > > all users have the freedom to study, share, change and improve Emacs. > > To make sure everyone has this freedom, pass along source code when you > > distribute any version of Emacs or a related program, and give the > > recipients the same freedom that you enjoyed." > > > > Here Stallman seems to freely admits that the GNU system is free, > > not because of any legal requirements in the GPL, but because the > > author (the FSF) practices the Golden Rule. And he seems to > > command that everyone else who receives the GNU system practice > > it, too. > > Look, Stallman is not GOD, and does not pass commandment over > mortals. He is a man with vision and ethics, but I doubt that he > aims to force everybody to behave like him, unwilling how he might > be. The software he manages is handed out under the GPL, and this > means that you can only use or distribute it if you comply to the > licence conditions. As you have not signed a contract, you can feel > free to disagree with the licence conditions and not feel bound by > it. In which case the copyright holder will not relax his rights to > the software in a way making you legally use it. Wait a minute, there's something wrong with this paragraph: 1. Stallman is not GOD -- granted. 2. He can't force everyone to behave like him -- granted. 3. He can try to force everyone to behave like him when using his (or other's like his) software -- definition of the GPL. 4. By using GPL'ed software, you have signed a license that should be every bit as binding as the Microsoft (et.al.) copyright licenses that you accept by opening their package -- license definition. 5. If the GPL is a lawyers construct to represent the "Golden Rule" and, yet, has flaws in it that allow subversion of the Rule, then maybe it should be modified -- as done in GPL v2. 6. Disagreeing with the Golden Rule means that you shouldn't be able to use GPL'ed software, not that you should be able to use it and ignore the GPL -- ignorance of the law is no defense. BTW, these are logical conclusions based upon past discussions, not a statement of my beliefs. -- David Masterson david@batcave.bungi.com