Fw: Query about GNU-GPL

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   No, theft is when you lose what was due to you by right.

And you didn't loose the source code, hence no theft.  What part of
this do you not grasp?

   There is a very simple formula for determining whether a moral
   crime has been committed - was there a victim? If there was, it was
   a moral crime.

And this isn't the "formula" that is used in either law or in common
sense.

   I don't know whether to bother arguing with you, as it's probably
   pointless.

Maybe because your arguments are so full of factual errors that you
can't defend them?

   You can't surely disagree with this as it's also the basis of the
   GPL - everyone donates their work if others do the same.

Actually, I can disagree with this since it is completely bogus.  This
isn't the basis of the GPL, the only basis the GPL has it to protect
the _users_ freedom.

   Therefore, if the Microsoft's of this world stopped innovating, ALL
   innovation in software would cease if left up to free software
   alone.

Once again I suggest that you open a book about computer history,
"Microsoft's of this world" have done either very little so called
"innovating", or none at all.

   You will of course disagree with this, go read my past posts to
   this mailing list first.

There is nothing to "disagree" with since it is false, and on the
verge of being a lie.

   Under a better system, everyone who takes risks/innovates gets
   reward. The GPL can only really be applied to things like software,
   applying it to other intangibles like music and movies just doesn't
   work.

The GPL (or the principals) applies quite fine to music, now instead
of computer history you should look at music history, classical and
folk music are good places to start. I do not watch movies that much,
but I cannot see why the same wouldn't apply there.


You really should read up on computer history before making the absurd
claims that you are doing...