PHPurple 0.1.0 pre-alpha is released

[Anatoliy Belsky]

ok, you just telling me - I'm doing so, just because my father did, and he has 
done it so, because his father did ... is this something progressive? does 
this politic have a drop of the reality? but the law is the law ... I've 
nothing to say here ... if all the village is beating someone with rocks, I 
can do it .. too? I hope only, the times gonna be changed some day ... you're 
going from one extreme to another, I want to stay in the mean ...

Regards 

On Monday 03 March 2008 22:42, Luke Schierer wrote:
> Anatoliy Belsky wrote:
> > yeah, therefore i'm writing "I see the freedom of the GPL in this case as
> > a compulsion". There is nobody on the mailing list, who siad - ok, we
> > could give him a chance with his lunatic idea. why?
> >
> > On Monday 03 March 2008 22:27, Daniel Atallah wrote:
> >> On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 4:22 PM, Anatoliy Belsky <anatoliy at belsky.info>
> >>
> >> wrote:
> >>> I can word it otherwise - it you always follow the GPL rules, it isn't
> >>> always
> >>> the best. The world has much more faces ... if you awaiting, that the
> >>> world
> >>> will be allways as u will, may be, you will be sometimes dissapointed
> >>> (as i'm
> >>> now) :)
> >>
> >> I guess this ties into my point about the licensing applying whether or
> >> not you like it.
> >>
> >> -D
>
> For good or for ill, neither we nor any previous developer has required
> that those submitting patches assign copyright to either ourselves or to
> a non-profit.  This means that to grant *any* exception to the license,
> to change it, or even to make it not apply to someone, *everyone* who
> we, or our predecessors, have *ever* accepted even one line of code from
> must agree to the change, or the exception, or the exemption.
>
> This means, in practice, that we are legally bound to not grant any
> exceptions, exemptions so on.  We *cannot* legally speak for all of
> those people.
>
> Yes, that means that at times the GPL acts to compel someone to do
> something (release source code under the GPL) that they do not want to
> do.  That is what the GPL was intended to do, protect the source code
> from those who would download it, and preserve the freedoms of all other
> users from that one.
>
> You may consider this a flaw in the GPL.  Others consider it a strength.
>   Which opinion you hold is irrelevant, the law is the law.
>
> This is precisely true of *all* laws.  For example, some people
> (sociopaths for example) consider the laws forbidding murder to be a
> restriction.  Others consider them a means of preserving freedom (from
> being killed or threated with death). This is an extreme example, but
> holds true of all laws.
>
> luke