On 11/11/2015 10:59 AM, Greg Rundlett (freephile) wrote:
So you object to contributing to software when you have to agree to the
pre-existing license of said software?
Yes. Contributing to GPL projects is not contributing to the common
good. It's only contributing to GPL projects. The common good includes
*BSD which cannot use code licensed under the GPL.
Contributor is not the same as Distributor
A contributor distributes his changes to others even if the others are
themselves distributors.
GPLv3 was created in order to combat Digital Restrictions. Again,
contributors to GPL'd software do so to retain, and protect their liberty,
not to lock it down and restrict it technically.
At the expense of my freedom to protect my rights.
AFAIK, private 'sharing' (non-disclosure) is not distribution, but we were
discussing the role of contributors rather than distributors.
Non-disclosure wouldn't even BE contributing.
See previous about contributor == distributor.
This is a liberating and freedom defending aspect of the GPL. It makes
software about solutions rather than lawyers. It makes contributions into
gifts rather than sneaky backdoor extortion schemes.
It's denying me some of my legal rights to my patents (if I had any).
You asked what is onerous and burdensome about the GPL. Theses are some
examples. Perhaps you don't find them onerous and burdensome. I do.
I've met Richard Stallman on many occasions and have yet to be stabbed,
even in Cambridge, MA where many of these alleged cronies must lie in wait
to stab contributors. I felt perfectly safe every occasion.
Someone fails to understand the concept of metaphor.
--
Rich P.
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
