Re: GPL traitor !

[Alan Mackenzie]

In gnu.misc.discuss Hadron <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:
> Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> writes:

>> In gnu.misc.discuss Hadron <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> writes:

>>>> In gnu.misc.discuss Doctor Smith <iaintgotnostinkinemail@ols.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 12:45:12 +0000 (UTC), Alan Mackenzie wrote:

>>>>>> It seems Matt has long misunderstood the GPL.  

>>>>> Like 99 percent of people who through some unfortunate process come in
>>>>> contact with it.

>>>> I wouldn't know, since I don't know any such people.  I know lots of
>>>> people whose contact with the GPL is benign, rewarding and profitable.

>>> You might need to educate a few Gnome developers then you are claiming
>>> they need to move to some third world shit hole to live on their OSS
>>> "donations".

>> Please don't project your opinions onto me with insulting words like
>> "claiming".  I have expressed no opinion on "third world shit holes", and
>> don't intend to.  I have no need whatsoever to educate Gnome developers.

>> As I said, I don't know anybody whose contact with the GPL has been
>> through "some unfortunate process".

> Then you haven't looked very far.

Read what I wrote.  I wrote "people I know", not "people I know of".  I'm
talking about friends, colleagues (past and present), fellow developers.
None of them has ever had anything but benign, rewarding and profitable
experience of the GPL.

>>>> I can't really see where misfortune enters into any contact with the
>>>> GPL.  Stupidity, certainly, but hardly misfortune.

>>> Day in day out the GPL is turned inside out. It's easy to CLAIM it's
>>> easy but fact does not bond with your fiction.

>> Huh?  The GPL is perfectly plain and straightforward and means what it
>> says.  You don't even need to get a lawyer to explain it to you, though
>> you certainly should consult one if you're going to be redistributing
>> GPL'd software.

> And yet meanwhile in the real world people are confused. You're so full
> of your own opinion you can not see the reality from your ivory tower.

Normally, I don't knock anonymous posters for being anonymous, but here
I'm beginning wonder who you are.  Why are you not posting under your
own name?  You might even be the same person as Rjack.  You might be a
shill for some proprietary software company.  What do you know about
software?  Are you a programmer at all?

Care to tell us a bit about yourself, what your interest in this mailing
list is, what your interest in the GPL is?  Who is Hadron?  What did Ron
feel about it?

And please don't accuse me of an ad hominem attack.  An ad h. is
attacking the person making a point instead of answering that point.
But you're not really making a point at all.  You're just lobbing vacuous
mud at the GPL, trying to create an impression of dodginess.  Your "point"
is so vague and insubstantial that there's nothing to answer.

It's actually quite funny seeing an anonymous poster trying to argue from
a position of authority, asserting that a hacker with a name and a solid
reputation is somehow ill informed, not seeing "the reality from [his]
ivory tower".  What's the tower you're standing in made of, Hadron?

It's also noticeable that the only people on this mailing list defaming
the GPL are the anonymous ones, RJack, Hadron, Amicus Curious (except for
Alex Terekhov, who's stated he knocks the GNU project as a hobby).

Again, the only people who get any trouble with the GPL are those who
violate it, those who try to evade it with precious sophistical
arguments (like our Rjack), or those who are negligent in their
licensing.  For everybody else, the vast majority of people in software,
the GPL, whichever version, is clear and obvious.

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).