Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ncar!tank!gargoyle!oddjob!matt From: matt@group-w.uchicago.edu (Matt Crawford) Newsgroups: comp.sources.d Subject: Re: Why a conscientious free software developer should time-date copyr Message-ID: <1040@gargoyle.uchicago.edu> Date: 25 May 90 21:23:25 GMT References: <973@gargoyle.uchicago.edu> <14832:May218:09:5990@stealth.acf.nyu.edu> <20294:May1204:24:5790@stealth.acf.nyu.edu> <1024@gargoyle.uchicago.edu> <16663:May1907:56:3890@stealth.acf.nyu.edu> Sender: news@gargoyle.uchicago.edu Reply-To: matt@group-w.uchicago.edu (Matt Crawford) Organization: Koyaanisqatsi Lines: 75 In-reply-to: brnstnd@stealth.acf.nyu.edu Dan whines --excuse me, claims-- that I don't quote enough. The only reason he can imagine for not quoting myself and him again and again is obfuscation. I have a reason: saving everyone's time and disk. The news-reader *I* use lets me back up along the "references" line with a single keystroke. Dan must not have as good a news-reader. I won't try to draw inferences from the fact that the news-reader I use is under a GPL-variant. But I still wonder why a guy like Dan, who thinks we all ought to go read great slabs of law, thinks we can't be bothered to look back an article or two and see who really said what? I have another reason, too: It can far more deceptive to selectively quote than not to quote at all. Now down to cases, so to speak. Dan again wallops us with his ignorance of uunet and similar services. He thinks he knows exactly what they do, but he doesn't. Shall we tell him? Why not ... Dan, UUNET has archives. If you subscribe, you can download stuff from their archives. Do they archive everything, without regard to content? They do not. So your argument on that point falls to the ground. As for not examining your license on filterfile, squeeze, or travesty, sorry, chum, but I never saved those programs. I guess they didn't grab my eye as being useful. When you were telling us by mail how awful GPL was, why didn't you just include your license then? On the next item, I'm going to give in and play it Dan's way, with quotes. Matt: ) > 2. The GPL says (paraphrased) "You may not distribute this except ) > according to certain terms." I asked Dan, didn't his own copyright ) > contain a like condition? ) Dan: ) The answer is obviously yes, as is true for anything that's not public ) domain. However, you never asked that silly question in this thread. ) Again you're failing to quote what I said (or what you said!), and so ) you're accidentally or intentionally misleading the reader. What we are referring to (Matt, May 4): } GPL section 4 begins: } } 4. You may not copy, sublicense, distribute or transfer GNU Emacs } except as expressly provided under this License Agreement. } } Is this a restriction which you do not make on your own work? If so, } then we can ignore your terms completely, can't we? I leave it to the two or three remaining readers of this thread to make up their minds whether I asked "that silly question" and whether I am "accidentally or intentionally misleading the reader." ) > o No rights to the recipient except those explicitly granted. Dan keeps going around in circles about this. Dan, please name for us one right that a recipient of "auth" has with respect to "auth", which is not explicitly granted. Just one. Nothing silly like "the right to print it on rye bread and feed it to ducks," please, Just one relevant, significant right. I thank Dan for outlining the reasoning behind his claim of unenforceability of the GPL, although I note for the record his acknowledgment that the claim is not proven. I wonder, is anyone distributing code in violation of the GPL? If not, then the license is as good as enforced. If someone is, the argument may soon be settled. ________________________________________________________ Matt Crawford matt@oddjob.uchicago.edu