Re: My brief and torrid affair with Ruby.

Daniel Carrera <[e-mail]> writes:
> Well... what I am saying is that this case is actually quite important in 
> the fact that it is an alternative.  It might not be convenient, or 
> appealing, but the fact that an alternative exists is important to the 
> issue of whether you are being forced to do something.

Well, to clarify further, then.  If I'm concerned about the licensing
of my code, then I'm only going to included GPL'd code in my code
unless I've met all three of the conditions I stated previously.  My
contention is that *IF* I were concerned such that I *WOULD* remove
it, I wouldn't have put it in in the first place.

Your distinction is subtle, it is certainly an alternative, but it is
not a situation that would likely arise.  If I were (practically) able
to remove the code, then why would I put it there in the first place?

> were not familiar with the content of the GPL.  Please avoid personal 
> offence since it does nothing to prove your point, and it does a lot to 
> triger flame wars.

Sorry about that.

> I wish that you would please consider the point that I am making.  I do 
> not doubt your understanding of the GPL.  I am arguing that the fact that 
> you have the choice not to GPL your code even after you have included GPL 
> code into your own is an important point.  I am arguing that this ability 
> makes a big difference.

And I'm arguing that it really doesn't.  I have the choice to include
the code or not, I also have the choice to remove the code or license
under the GPL.  If I am going to choose to remove the code, I would
not be very likely to include it in the first place.  The case where
removing the code would actually happen is not very topical.  The
issue here is that if we *want to use* the GPL'd code, then we *have*
to GPL our own. If we didn't want to use the code, then this would be
a non-issue.  Removing the code indicates that we don't want to use
it. QED.

Sorry again for the flame-baiting.  I'll try to behave better ;)