Re: scope of linux in the corporates...

"David Schwartz" <davids@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Please just reconcile this one quote:

Easy: You are *not* reading it correctly.

We can start with the assumption the Eben Moglen knows what it says
and what it means. Any contradiction between what he says and what
you or I think it means indicates an error on our part. In this
case, that is *you*.

....

Eben Moglen, in all of those quotes, is giving informal, imprecise
summary information. You cannot derive legal conclusions about edge
cases from what he's saying.

Bull***. He is talking about court cases, about enforcing the
GPL, and about what the courts are doing when the GPL is enforced.

The terms "copying" and "distributing" have precise legal meanings that
determine what you do and don't need the copyright holder's permission
to do, and hence when you have to agree with the terms.

Yes, and *you* clearly do not have a clue.

You are using them by their common English meanings and assuming from
that that you can tell when the GPL does and doesn't apply. You just
can't do that.

Eben Moglen can. Which is why I quoted him. Obviously you do
not have a clue.

You must accompany every copy with source code (or an offer for it) --
always.

When I copy it from my desktop to my laptop??? You are silly.

That's the gist of what the GPL says. You must accept the GPL
to create a derivative work in the first place (assuming that doing so
is not fair use), no matter what Eben Moglen says.

You do realize who Eben Moglen is, right?

Nobody should miss who you are: a confused guy who does not
understand the GPL.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@xxxxxxxxxx
.

Quantcast