Re: Re: Fw: [Xaraya_curiosa] FW: Re: Proprietary Modules and GPL API (from postnuke devel list)

> Gregory, exactly where have we stated that we are going to license 
anything
> other than the GPL?  I am a bit confused by your posting this 
message.  Is
> it not good enough that Chris has posted two follow-ups to your 
original
> misconception?

As I said, I jumped the gun when I saw. 
http://www.xaraya.com/newsgroups/article.php?id=76&group=xaraya.curiosa

I believe it is good to get an opinion from the FSF regarding these 
issues as we are dealing with software here licensed under the FSF/GNU.

> 
> It seems that you are intent on furthering your confusion that you 
had, just
> wondering exactly what you motives are in this?  Can we further 
expect next
> that we are also connected to the Taliban in some form or fashion 
because
> our website when encrypted with MD5 spells some sort of manifesto of
> destruction?

My motives are to educate developers about licensing issues regarding 
the GPL since there still are so many unresolved issues and debates. 
My motives are also out of commercial interests. If we are to build a 
commercial market and legal foundation on the GPL then the FSF not the 
DDF would seem to be the legal authority here. Am I wrong?

> 
> Then again, maybe I am just misunderstanding your motives, because 
from
> where I am sitting, they ain't looking to be pure as the driven snow.
> Aren't misconsceptions a funny thing?

I will do my best to clear up any misconceptions now and in the 
future. None of us can claim to be pure as the driven snow. I have 
always wondered why there needs to be a DDF when there is an FSF. Can 
you please explain this to us?

Greg