Re: GNU licenses

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   > The GPL didn't infect, nor spoil the project.  The person who
   > included code did (actually, he made a good thing, so one should
   > say that he spoiled it or infected it). The GNU GPL does not have
   > a soul, mind or can somehow act without a human.

   So I'm right. Using the GPL code does 'spoil' the project.

The GNU GPL did no such thing, the GNU GPL cannot `spoil' anything,
since you or someone added the code, that someone did the act, not the
GNU GPL.  The GNU GPL is not an AI life-form.

   I know I don't HAVE to use the code, it's my choice (you keep
   getting hung up on my "automatic", etc. phrasings!!!!), but I don't
   understand the rationale for MAKING THE LICENSE THAT WAY, why it
   demands the original code become GNU ***and be USELESS for non-GNU
   projects without making them GNU***.

Again, please stop confusing GNU projects with software licensed under
the GNU GPL, they don't have to be the same thing.  The rationale for
why the GNU GPL has been written as it has been written has already
been explained to you several times: to protect the freedom of
computer users.

Nobody has demanded anything from you, if you wish to use GNU GPL code
you must abide by the license.  If I wish to use your program, I must
abide by your license.  Nobody demanded that you use code that is
licensed under a particular license.

   It's that last part in asterisks that I hate. The distribution of
   said combined work should have NO BEARING on ANY other works that
   have NO 3rd-party code in them but are based on ORIGINAL code from
   the combined work!

The combined work is a deriviate work, you have used someone else
material in it, which is licensed under a set of conditions.  This is
how it is for all copyrighted works.