> I just read *another* person who ought to know better > referring to how the GPL "destroys intellectual
> property." Can someone please work up a presentation
> for IF2 on the different types of Free Software
> licenses?
A great way to argue the "destroys intellectual property" debate is beat
them with their own poor use of terminology.
Say how does the GPL destroy 'trademarks' again? (after they say thats
not what they meant)
Say how does it kill 'non-compete agreements? (after they say thats not
what they meant)
Say how does it overstep the bounds of a 'non-disclosure agreement'?
(after they say thats not what they meant)
Say how does it kill exactly does it kill 'patents' again? (after they
possibly stretch for ways and say thats not what they really mean)
Say how does it kill 'copyright' again? (at which point they will
probbably pontificate for some time and then you rebuttal with so let me
get this straight. The GPL relies on copyright to be enforced, yet you
say it kills copyright, therefore it must not be enforceable so why are
you so worried again?)
At which point you say I'm not sure what other 'intellectual property'
you think its destroy maybe you could enlighten me. ;)
(of course this is best done with your most sarcastic attitude) ;)
> I mean, it's so frustrating. Don't like the GPL?
> Fine. Ignore it. Just fall back to plain old copyright.
Yes I find it VERY funny people try to say GPL is so horrid when it
grants MORE rights than normal copyright intended.
> Want to modify it? Want to give it to someone else?
> Hmmm, well, OK, but only if you agree to some
> conditions. I'm not forcing you to go beyond
> traditional copyright, but if you want to, here's
> what you have to agree to.
(text/plain)