3 ms·

Actually, the article makes no explanation of why GNU is specially identifying "trivial" programs, nor how they came up with their guidelines. And neither do yo

by flomo 12y ago

Actually, the article makes no explanation of why GNU is specially identifying "trivial" programs, nor how they came up with their guidelines. And neither do you. So I will maintain that my copyright explanation is the best explanation, simply because (sofar) it's the only explanation.

dragonwriter 12y ago
> Actually, the article makes no explanation of why GNU is specially identifying "trivial" programs, nor how they came up with their guidelines. I didn't say they did. I said that they say what their policy is, and I said that the policy they describe has no relation to any distinction in copyright law. A counterargument would be to show such a relationship, not to point out the absence of something that I never claimed was present.
- flomo 12y ago
  This is an unproductive discussion, you're telling me that "you're wrong, but I don't know why". In any case, "trivial" has a meaning under copyright law and therefore is very relevant to the GPL and whatever argument they're putting forth. That is all.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > This is an unproductive discussion, Yes. Largely because you keep inventing things I'm not saying to respond to. Such as: > you're telling me that "you're wrong, but I don't know why". No, I never said anything like that, and I stated quite directly how you were wrong. > In any case, "trivial" has a meaning under copyright law I don't think that's accurate, and the article you offered upthread to support that position does not -- in fact, the only uses of trivial in that article are to make the point that the legal concerns it discusses (idea vs. expression, and functional vs. creative works) are relevant in the same way to trivial (which it doesn't discuss as a term with legal significance) and non-trivial programs. And, in any case, the use of "trivial" in Stallman's post isn't connected to anything related to copyright law -- even if "trivial" was a term that had legal significance, that wouldn't make every use of "trivial" in regard to the GPL automatically related to that significance, especially when the sense of "trivial" being used is explicitly defined in the work in which it is used and isn't tied to the definition of any legally-significant distinction.

by flomo 12y ago

dragonwriter 12y ago

> Actually, the article makes no explanation of why GNU is specially identifying "trivial" programs, nor how they came up with their guidelines. I didn't say they did. I said that they say what their policy is, and I said that the policy they describe has no relation to any distinction in copyright law. A counterargument would be to show such a relationship, not to point out the absence of something that I never claimed was present.

flomo 12y ago
This is an unproductive discussion, you're telling me that "you're wrong, but I don't know why". In any case, "trivial" has a meaning under copyright law and therefore is very relevant to the GPL and whatever argument they're putting forth. That is all.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > This is an unproductive discussion, Yes. Largely because you keep inventing things I'm not saying to respond to. Such as: > you're telling me that "you're wrong, but I don't know why". No, I never said anything like that, and I stated quite directly how you were wrong. > In any case, "trivial" has a meaning under copyright law I don't think that's accurate, and the article you offered upthread to support that position does not -- in fact, the only uses of trivial in that article are to make the point that the legal concerns it discusses (idea vs. expression, and functional vs. creative works) are relevant in the same way to trivial (which it doesn't discuss as a term with legal significance) and non-trivial programs. And, in any case, the use of "trivial" in Stallman's post isn't connected to anything related to copyright law -- even if "trivial" was a term that had legal significance, that wouldn't make every use of "trivial" in regard to the GPL automatically related to that significance, especially when the sense of "trivial" being used is explicitly defined in the work in which it is used and isn't tied to the definition of any legally-significant distinction.