Re: [tlug] Proprietary derivatives of FLOSS and other absurdities [was: Why Hollywood does break foreign films ?]

[Benjamin Tayehanpour <benjamin@example.com>]

On 14 August 2013 06:05, Stephen J. Turnbull <stephen@example.com> wrote:
> True, but in the original context common inheritance was *the* point.
> If social context (including common code bases) doesn't matter to us,
> why are we doing this?  (That's not a rhetorical question.)

Well that's the point, isn't it? In my humble opinion, there is no
social context (or a negative one at best) if the will and ability to
reciprocate isn't there. If the benefit is one-way, it's not sharing.
It's leeching.

I think we're both correct here, in that there are different
definitions for the verb "to share". You are using it in the
definition "to have in common". I'm using it in the "to partake of,
use, experience, occupy, or enjoy with others" context. I think our
disagreement is mostly semantic and therefore moot.

Regarding the other matter, I will concede that your guess is, indeed,
as good as mine, as expected of an area of law backed mainly by insane
troll logic. We'll just have to put our faith in RMS and the FSF for
the time being, I guess, until better times arrive.