Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean

[Rjack]

Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> Happy pagan fertility rite, RJack!

. . . whining . . .
. . . more whining . . .

> Its enforceability is a sensible default assumption.  The GPL was 
> put together by a competent lawyer,

I didn't know Richard Stallman was a lawyer. Was that pseudo-fact also
a default assumption?

> is perfectly clear in what it says, is perfectly reasonable in what
>  it says, has so far stood the test of time, and has been ruled 
> valid by judges whenever it has been challenged in court.

The GPL has never been interpreted by a U.S. court.

> Your arguments, on the other hand, as much as I can make them out, 
> seem based on arcane interpretations of USA law, sometimes citing 
> cases going back the best part of a century judged in social 
> conditions which simply don't exist any more.  They also seem based
>  on the notion that absolute logical consistency holds in law.
>
> So put your argument up on a web site, and leave some room here for
>  people to talk about something interesting.

As long as the Free Software Foundation claims enforceability under
U.S. law and harasses folks through bogus lawsuits, I shall counter
their attempts at socialist propaganda. Countless blogs mindlessly
repeat their fiction and this demands correction. Rulings in non-U.S.
jurisdictions are irrelevant to me as I have explicitly disclaimed
knowledge of non-U.S. law.

You Marxist folks may wallow in Stallman's socialism all you wish. I
don't expect you to grasp or follow U.S. law. Dogs don't do nuclear
physics and socialists don't do capitalism. If you don't like or
understand the arguments I present, then by all means use your
kill-filter to raise your comfort level.

Sincerely,
Rjack :)