Re: Significance of the GP licence.

[David Kastrup]

RJack <user@example.net> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
>> RJack <user@example.net> writes:
>>
>>> David Kastrup wrote:
>>>> RJack <user@example.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> VICTOR TARABOLA CORTIANO wrote:
>>>>>> OK I'm so fucking tired of this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I use OpenBSD. I use GCC. Use GNU/Linux.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BSD is free. GPL is free.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Don't worry. The GPL license and the "Free Software" religion
>>>>> will soon reside in history's trashbin that contains Urban
>>>>> Legends.
>>>> A few people told RMS when he started.  Now it is a whole hissing
>>>>  and yelling bunch.  That they bother is the best proof that they
>>>>  are wrong. And they know it.
>>>>
>>> There are still a few nut-jobs out there in Cyberspace who believe
>>> the GPL is enforceable, even though the license requires that
>>> copyright permissions be licensed at "no charge to all third
>>> parties".
>>
>> More relevantly, there are no judges out there in court rooms who
>> believe the terms of the GPL can be ignored while making use of its
>> permissions.
>
> Please provide links to those US federal judges who *do not* "believe
> the terms of the GPL can be ignored."

You are changing the topic: of course you are free to ignore the terms
of the GPL and it explicitly says so itself.  What you are not free to
do is ignore its terms _while_ making use of its permissions.

> I await with 'bated breath for your documentation.

You are changing the topic, namely judges who *do* believe.  So please
name a few judges who believe the terms of the GPL can be ignored
_while_ making use of its permissions.

You won't find any.  And that's the point.

-- 
David Kastrup