On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 13:36:35 -0500 Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, 2006-06-18 at 12:46, Sean wrote: > > > Les, please go do some thinking and attempt to understand the > > GPL. It seems no matter how many times you've been shown > > to be incorrect you just keep repeating this STUPID "work > > as a whole" mantra. > > The insistence that the license applies to the 'work as > a whole' is the thing that distinguishes the GPL from > everything else and in fact is the entire point of the GPL. > If you don't understand that, do some research on the > things the FSF has challenged in their effort to restrict > distribution of other people's work. Without that > clause, terms would apply only to the portions that > the author applying the license had created - something > no one could fault and the way everyone expects copyright > law to work. The Microsoft proprietary license is distinguished from all the other licenses by its insistence that you pay Microsoft money, so fscking what. The fact that the GPL is DIFFERENT is the very reason it exists. If it was the SAME as everything else there would be no reason for it to exist. Just because YOU don't like the rules doesn't mean SQUAT. Please SOD off. You've proven you don't even have a basic understanding of copyright law and how it applies to GPL'd source code. You've proven that your understanding of "work as a whole" is completly skewed and incorrect. You've proven that you're willing to make outlandish unsupportable statements about the GPL without even a care to back them up with facts. You're so bloody wrong about just about every point you made it makes you look stupid. For your sake I hope you're not as stupid as the arguments you've put forth in this thread. Sean
