Xref: utzoo alt.religion.computers:1347 gnu.misc.discuss:731 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!rpi!image.soe.clarkson.edu!news From: nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) Newsgroups: alt.religion.computers,gnu.misc.discuss Subject: Re: Disinfecting the GNU Public Virus...er...License Message-ID: Date: 16 Jan 90 21:41:41 GMT References: <4&VSZ:@splut.conmicro.com> Sender: news@sun.soe.clarkson.edu Reply-To: nelson@clutx.clarkson.edu Organization: Clarkson University, Potsdam NY Lines: 29 In-reply-to: jay@splut.conmicro.com's message of 19 Dec 89 16:06:37 GMT In article <4&VSZ:@splut.conmicro.com> jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes: Ignorance of the law is no excuse, so the user of the code is still covered by the terms of the GNU Public License. Presto! Without knowing it, he's just obligated himself to giving away the source code to WhizzoCalc, and prevented himself from keeping others from giving it away, forever. Some short time ago someone asked for examples of public domain code that had been expropriated by a producer of commercial software. No one could come up with an example. I suggest that you come up with an example of someone who unintentionally "infected" his code. In short, we would be free not to join in RMS' utopia. As people have pointed out ad nauseum, you are perfectly free NOT to join in RMS' utopia. Just don't use any of his property, and you won't have to abide by the rules he puts on the use of his property. RMS *wants* the GPL to be a virus. At least, that is my conclusion based on my interpretation of the GPL. Why do you keep attempting to make this conclusion into a pejorative? -- --russ (nelson@clutx [.bitnet | .clarkson.edu]) Russ.Nelson@$315.268.6667 Violence never solves problems, it just changes them into more subtle problems