🚀 go-pugleaf

[ I'm posting it for a friend that has no Internet access during this week.
  The true header is following. ]

Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Path: i2unix!dist.dist.unige.it!foobar
From: foobar@dist.dist.unige.it (Maurizio Vitale)
Subject: Re: Yet more GNU licensings...
Sender: news@i2unix.dist.unige.it (USENET Superuser)
Reply-To: foobar@dist.dist.unige.it (Maurizio Vitale)
Organization: DIST - Universita` di Genova


   Why can't people who know what document they are talking about read
   the thing?

I am pretty sure I did. But may be you have more informations on that
than myself.

   >From the GPL: Source code for a work means the preferred form of
   the work for making modifications to it.

Preferred to who? I tend to relate the "preferred" in the above
sentence to the individual or the group writing the code. I don't think
that you can ask for the Ada source of gcc only because you prefer
that form to make your modifications. 

   Of course nothing actually prevents people from violating a license
   agreement aside from possible sanctions, but it is clear that such
   acts would be a gross violation that likely would not be hard to
   prove in any legal situation, even in front of 'the common man'.
   Any number of expert programmers could be brought to testify on
   what this form is.

I wasn't trying to find ways to bypass the GPL and of course no one
(even if I have some doubt on the 'common man') can have any problem
in telling that the examples I have shown are not written by a man. 
I can also be with you when you say that similar code has not the least
chance of winning a trial, but there are many shades between the
perfect source code you keep for your in-house development and what you
can give to the outside to fulfill the requirements imposed by the
GPL.
What I'd like to see is a clarification of the GPL because it seems to
me that simply stripping the comments and inlining all of the
functions at the source level can render the sources almost useless in
a way that, IMHO, is hard to defeat. The real reason of the GPL is to
allow the sharing of ideas and what I was trying to say is that, in my
opinion, you can be fully compliant with the GPL and yet go against
the ideals that inspired it.

   [ considerations on which posture is to be assumed while posting on
     this newsgroup deleted ]

   Good luck to everyone in finding a worthwhile focus.

Don't try too hard since probably there is anything worthwhile in my
post, but so it is in many other threads I've seen recently.



				Maurizio Vitale
 _______________
|        _      |\    (e-mail): foobar@dist.unige.it
|  /|/| '_) | ) | |   (voice):  +39 55 4378831 (work Mon-Fri)
| | | |_(_|_|/  | |             +39 55 6812511 (home Mon-Thu)
|_______________| |             +39 10 397369  (home Fri-Sun)
 \_______________\|   (fax):    +39 55 416996


--
...........Marco.Gualdi.............|.How.many.Martians.does.it.take.to.screw.
....................................|.in.a.lightbulb?.........................
.(e-mail)....monta_l@dist.unige.it..|.........................................
....................................|.One.and.a.half..........................