'GPL encumbrance problems' (jdow)

[Mike McCarty]

Erwin Rol wrote:
>>I wonder whether you
>>	(a) are a troller
>>	(b) are actually incapable of comprehending written English
>>	(c) cannot think clearly due to emotional upset/anger/whatever
>>	(d) have a personality disorder
>>	(e) something I don't know what it is, or
>>	(f) all of the above.
> 
> 
> Nice way to try to personally insult someone, guess that means the end
> of this thread for me.
> 
> 
>>You have argued repeatedly against claims which weren't made
>>by anyone on this thread.
> 
> 
> One claim that was made was that a program that uses a GPL library can
> be put under any license you like, which is not true.

I didn't see that claim. But I didn't claim that the *only* claims
you argued against were claims that weren't made. I claimed that
you have repeatedly argued against claims that weren't made.
Arguing in this way is a logical error which is so common it has
a name.

> A second claim was that a library under the LGPL would force a LGPL/GPL
> license on your program , which is also not true.

Please support this statement. I quoted to you (in another message)
where the LGPL specifically states that it does force itself onto
the exectuable. For your convenience, here is a link:

http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html

See section 5.

> A third claim was that the Linux kernel forces every program run on
> Linux OS to be GPL, which is also not true, since the kernel authors
> clearly stated that userspace programs are not derived works from the
> kernel.

I'm not competent to respond to this, due to ignorance of the issues.

> A fourth claim was that Microsoft DLL Licenses don't for a certain
> license on your programs, which is also not true (just reread your
> Visual Studio License).

First, I find that sentence a little difficult to parse. But I'll
go with what seems a resonable meaning to attribute to it.

That was not the claim I saw made. This is an example of you arguing
against a claim which was not made. See one of my other messages
explicating this matter.

> A fifth claim was that companies like Oracle and Vmware also use GPL
> libraries for their software, which is also not true, they use LGPL
> libraries.

And you have personal knowledge of this fact? Or what is your source?
I have no knowledge of whether Oracle or VmWare use either GPL or LGPL,
libraries or any combination of them.

> Don't bother replying to this because this Trolling non English
> understander with a emotional personality disorder will not continue
> this conversation anymore.

Ok. I won't expect a response to any of my other messages, either.

Mike
-- 
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!