> 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. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
