Message-ID: <3D4A761D.4090809@csi.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 08:07:57 -0400
From: John Colagioia <JColagioia@csi.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.0rc2) Gecko/20020618 Netscape/7.0b1
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction
Subject: Re: IF library licence / game licence
References: <3d4632e1.170761705@news.buffalo.edu> <uit2xl4yw.fsf@dfan.thecia.net> <3d46c553.338368@news.buffalo.edu> <3d46febb@excalibur.gbmtech.net> <3d4732de.14420615@news.buffalo.edu> <3D47E88E.3030903@csi.com> <3d47ef0e.442205134@news.tiscali.nl> <3D4949A6.9030307@csi.com> <aibncg$3e6$2@reader2.panix.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: ool-182f30fa.dyn.optonline.net
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: ool-182f30fa.dyn.optonline.net
X-Trace: excalibur.gbmtech.net 1028289619 ool-182f30fa.dyn.optonline.net (2 Aug 2002 08:00:19 -0400)
Organization: ProNet USA Inc.
Lines: 39
X-Authenticated-User: jnc
Path: news.duke.edu!newsgate.duke.edu!solaris.cc.vt.edu!news.vt.edu!news-hog.berkeley.edu!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!logbridge.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!news.tufts.edu!uunet!dca.uu.net!excalibur.gbmtech.net
Xref: news.duke.edu rec.arts.int-fiction:106991

Andrew Plotkin wrote:
> Here, John Colagioia <JColagioia@csi.com> wrote:
>>Richard Bos wrote:
>>>John Colagioia <JColagioia@csi.com> wrote:
>>[...]
>>>>The GPL, by contrast, basically says that "anyone following the FSF
>>>>rules can treat the software, and its source code, as if it were in
>>>>the Public Domain."
>>>Erm, no. If it were in the PD, I could distribute it without source.
>>Except that would violate the FSF rules, so you can't do that and
>>still be covered under the license.
> Agreed.
> Therefore, it is pointless to say "Anyone following the rules can
> treat it as if it were public domain." Yeah, as long as you follow the
> rules, you can ignore all the rules that those rules say you're free to
> ignore. Does this make life any clearer?
> Just explain the damn thing as being what it *is*, not what it's sort
> of like sometimes.

With all due respect, I think you're reacting emotionally to my
"daring" to compare Public Domain with the GPL.

One can do whatever he wishes with a work in the Public Domain; one
can similarly do whatever he wishes with a work licensed under the
GPL.  That this hypothetical person must *also* do other things to
gain those rights is irrelevant.  The two licensing arrangements
provide the same rights to different groups of people.

I fail to see how this is unclear or confusing, or why this could
possibly be considered controversial.

As to "explaining what the damn thing is," I made the (perhaps
unwarranted assumption that anyone not knowing what I was talking
about could very well head over to www.gnu.org and read the damn
thing for themselves.

*I'll* reread it, since apparently, you'd like me to spoon-feed the
information to everyone.

