The current line of reasoning is about as sane (my humble opinion) as the
"GPL is invalid" line of reasoning.
It was absolutely amazing that the
defendant took it far enough the Judge had to actually say (my
paraphrase):
Look, let's say I accept your argument the GPL is invalid.
With your admissions of copying, I certainly hope you have another license that
allows you to do that or you're admittedly in clear violation of Copyright
Law.
The anti-GPL group - as near as I can figure - just can't come to
grasp with the basics of Copyright Law and the fact (I think this is the key)
that most of us don't want money for their breach. We're not willing to accept
money and give them the license they want.
They really can't seem to come
to grasp that we only want either:
Don't copy/distribute our
works
or
Comply with the full license terms
There are exceptions
of course.
That one guy who tried to revoke the GPL and demanded everyone
that had the source immediately delete it when he entered into the contractual
agreement with a Company where he was only to supply them with the code. Like
he could revoke the license when it doesn't contain a clause allowing him to do
so and there was no breach.
Then there was the guy who sold MySQL - then
tried to lay claim to the license as being wrong for the product so it should be
changed to BSD.
So yea... there are exceptions. The Corporate mind just
can't seem to grasp what most of us are willing to accept though. And given
Copyright Law allows us to dictate terms....
... it really is too bad
they can't understand.
:)
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
| 
