[Asterisk-Users] SysMaster and GPL Violation

[Tom Lahti]

[snip]

> > > Really?  Wouldn't it be nice, then, if Digium explicitly stated that this
> > > was their intention, in their little agreements?

Why aren't YOU stating your own intention with this whole thread, or do you 
even realize it fully yourself?

Your intent, whether you realize it or not, is to effectively chain Mark 
and all the contributors by the ankles and make them work for your benefit, 
until they starve to death.  You can dance around and say outright that you 
don't really want that, but everything else you're saying leads to that result.

> > To an extent, screw the FSF's opinion on this.
>
>Really?  Be very careful.  Once you say that, you really begin to slide
>back down from Mount Principles into the depths of license evil.

Capitalizing a false concept doesn't make it any more real.

>But if you're going to adopt the GPL, and then you're going to cut a big
>hole in it, then I don't think it's wrong to at least discuss it, in a
>variety of contexts, including that which would likely be promoted by the
>FSF.
>
> > In the same line where they say it is "ethically
> > tainted", they also say the copyrightholder can do what ever they want.
>
>Of course, because that's legal fact.

And you are contradicting yourself, here.  First you say its not wrong to 
discuss it, and then you say its wrong to suggest that the copyright holder 
can do what they want, which is exactly what Mark is doing.  Make up your 
mind, would ya?  Or are you instead saying the copyright law is immoral and 
should be abolished? That would be nice, wouldn't it.  Then you could seize 
all of Mark's work outright and you wouldn't have to argue and type so much.

The fact is, I and everyone else defending Mark are doing so because Mark's 
right are MY rights, they are their rights, and they are even YOUR rights 
(yes, everyone get to go along for the ride).  We're talking about the 
right of the creator of something of value to use and dispose of it as he 
sees fit; otherwise known as property rights.  Your saying he doesn't have 
that right, and I'm saying he does.

Just because he adopted the GPL in some form doesn't mean that Asterisk is 
now public property.

Yes, he took the GPL, modified to his own use, and went forward.  We all 
know this, and SO WHAT?  Asterisk is his product, its his decision to do 
with as he sees fit, and you don't have to like it.  You can either use 
Asterisk by whatever terms he makes up, or not, and that is that.

All this other crap is you trying to say that Mark has no right to do with 
Asterisk what he wants, when he made it in the first place, simply because 
of what terms he chose and how he chose them.

Or for some other poster, because he chose to use Asterisk in his 
corporation and now _somehow_ he should have some say in how its 
developed/maintained just because he's using it.  Well you know what, you 
can always stop using it if you don't like it, or you never should have 
started in the first place.  You knew what the score was when you started, 
and if you didn't its your own fault for being too lazy to read and 
understand.

In my opinion, Mark's biggest mistake has been adopting the GPL in the 
first place.  He could have written his OWN general public license verbage 
and called it something else, and then noone would have this angle to 
question whether or not he was trying to trick or deceive people into 
handing over their intellectually property for nothing.


--
Tom