From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Nov 1 04:28:06 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F8A616A4CE for ; Mon, 1 Nov 2004 04:28:06 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail1.webmaster.com (mail1.webmaster.com [216.152.64.168]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC8D343D46 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 2004 04:28:05 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from davids@webmaster.com) Received: from however by webmaster.com (MDaemon.PRO.v7.1.0.R) with ESMTP id md50000253513.msg for ; Sun, 31 Oct 2004 20:04:29 -0800 From: "David Schwartz" To: , Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 20:27:52 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 In-Reply-To: X-Authenticated-Sender: joelkatz@webmaster.com X-Spam-Processed: mail1.webmaster.com, Sun, 31 Oct 2004 20:04:29 -0800 (not processed: message from trusted or authenticated source) X-MDRemoteIP: 206.171.168.138 X-Return-Path: davids@webmaster.com X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: chat@freebsd.org X-MDAV-Processed: mail1.webmaster.com, Sun, 31 Oct 2004 20:04:30 -0800 Subject: RE: GPL vs BSD Licence X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: davids@webmaster.com List-Id: Non technical items related to the community List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2004 04:28:06 -0000 > > I have, and while I don't bash them, I disagree with many of their > > interpretations > > > because they don't seem to reflect any understanding > > whatsoever of copyright law. > > What you just said there was a bash. Not a bash. It's a indisputable fact that there are wacko GPL advocates who have no understanding of copyright law at all and just assume that it works the naive way they think it should work. They say things as absurd as that one work can be a derivative work of another even though the authors of that work never saw any of the work it's supposed to be derivative of. There are wackos on the other side too, of course. DS