Rjack <u...@example.net> writes: > John Hasler wrote: >> David Kastrup writes: >>> It would not seem like a particularly important "victory". >> >> I think it is an obvious and predictable victory, but still an >> important one as it has a court establishing that the GPL is _not_ >> the same as public domain. This is obvious, but many trolls have >> asserted that it is so loudly and so frequently for so many years >> that they have actually convinced many members of the public. > > Wow, I an unaware of those loud and frequent "troll" arguments > claiming that GPL licensed code is public domain. Could you provide > links to some of those arguments?
Easy enough using Google groups search. For example, try Message-Id: <24udnzdwr4cqqxrvnz2dnuvz_ggdn...@giganews.com> from a certain "Rjack" troll. I quote: > I couldn't agree more about distributing illegally and violateing an > *enforceable* copyright license. > > An illegal toilet-paper license like the GPL is a whole 'nuther > story. An now for the rest of the story. . . -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
