🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <2212@prune.bbn.com> rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz) writes:
>In <.SP8B@splut.conmicro.com> jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes:
>>I agree that the person who posted GNU getopt without a copy of the GPV
>>screwed up; still, that doesn't mean that those who use the code should
>>be penalized.
>Basically, the rule is that even if you get something without the copyright
>THE COURTS have said that you are liable.  (You'd presumably seek civil
>action against the person to cover your tail.)

I was speaking in the moral sense, not the legal sense.

I don't object to the fact that someone in that situation should have to
conform to the coyright; what I am objecting to is, specifically, the
virus part of the GPV: his code, _not just GNU getopt_, falls under the
terms of the GPV. This is unconscionable.

People wanted an example of how someone's program could fall under the
terms of the GPV without his knowledge. Here 'tis.

-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL   | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jay@splut.conmicro.com       (eieio)| adequately be explained by stupidity.
{attctc,bellcore}!texbell!splut!jay +----------------------------------------
 "...when hasn't gibberish been legal C?" -- Tom Horsley, tom@ssd.harris.com