(OT) - Major Blow to Copyleft Theory

[David Woolley]

Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Interesting commentary from rjack (some folks seem to think that
> Daniel Wallace is the person behind that nick :-) )

Could you please explain your personal reasons behind your campaign of 
FUD against copyleft, or failing that, the political philosophy that 
leads to it.  At the moment, my tendency is to treat you as a troll and 
ignore the contents of your postings.  I suspect that is true of many 
other people on the list.

Note that I don't want citations of statute or case law.  One important 
thing to consider, is that, in democracies, the law exists for the 
benefit of the people, and my view is that, if copyleft licences really 
are unsound in law, the correct solution is to change the law, as there 
are a large number of people who consider them desirable.

However, I don't believe you are posting because you want to get the law 
changed, I think you are posting because you believe that the existence 
of copyleft licences (and possibly permissive licences) is bad public 
policy, and I'd like to understand why, whilst noting that this mailing 
list is not a very effective place for holding such a campaign.

-- 
David Woolley
Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.