Tim Smith wrote:
For example, if I want to release a proprietary plug-in for GIMP, I *do*
*not* *care* what GPL says about that, because I believe that I do not
have to do anything in developing or distributing that plugin that
requires permission of the GIMP copyright owners, and I do not believe
users of my plugin have to do anything when using the plugin with GIMP
that they require permission for (so I don't have to worry about
contributory infringement, since there cannot be contributory
infringement without direct infringement). I've not heard any good
argument from the FSF as to why the video game cases would not apply.
Uhhh...
Anyone who has consumed even a few ounces of Eben Moglen's famous Kool-Aid
knows that writing a plugin for a GPL'd program instantly gives the F.S.F. and
S.F.L.C. control over your wife, kids, estate, family dog *and* your source
code.
Even the mention of "copyright infringement" by the S.F.L.C sends potential
defendants into paroxysms of incredulous cowardice and supplication.
Beware the GPL or it'll get you too!
Sincerely,
Rjack
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or
the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."
-- John Adams, 'Argument in Defense of the Soldiers in the Boston Massacre
Trials,' December 1770
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
