Re: scope of linux in the corporates...

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
"David Schwartz" <davids@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

"David Schwartz" <davids@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Please just reconcile this one quote:
Easy: You are *not* reading it correctly.
Which am I not reading correctly? The two excerpts are in direct
contradiction.

Eben Moglen understands what the GPL means. If you see a
conflict, rest assured the error is *yours*.

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*.
No, the error is on your part. Eben Moglen does not mean what you think
he means. If he did, there would be the direct contradiction I cited.

That is *your* misunderstanding.

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.
Then explain why he says you don't need to accept the GPL to modify a
covered work and the GPL specifically says you do.

*You* are misreading one or the other.

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.
I certainly do. You are the one who sometimes uses "distribute" to mean

*YOU* are the one who continues to claim that it means
something other than what the GPL intended it to mean. The GPL
was *not* written in legalese, it cannot be read in legalese,
and it is never interpreted in legalese.

The GPL was written with great help of lawyers.

You should be aware that the GPL has been tested in court during the
past few years. It seems still to be a populer belief it has not.
.

Quantcast