Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

[Chris Ahlstrom]

After takin' a swig o' grog, Thufir Hawat belched out
  this bit o' wisdom:

> On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 19:52:22 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:
>
>>> You're begging the question.  Your "conclusion" is that the source need
>>> only be available if it's been modified, and, since the source wasn't
>>> modified, then it need not be available.
>>>
>> I am not arguing the meaning of the text contained in the GPL, I am
>> saying that, unless the code has been modified in some useful way, then
>> it is of no value to the community.

I've never modified vim.  Yet I (and thousands of others) find it
/immensely/ useful.  The same for gcc and g++.  OpenOffice.  Fluxbox.
Python.  And many more.  Even if I don't modify them, others do, and
I get the modifications.

That's (to use Bill Gates' favorite enthusiastic ejaculation) *cool*.

> So you don't dispute the legality of the GPL?  You're just find it 
> inconvenient?  If so, then don't distribute GPL'd software and go about 
> your business.

-- 
If you are shooting under 80 you are neglecting your business;
over 80 you are neglecting your golf.
                -- Walter Hagen