Let's keep the namecalling! Show must go on! Show must go oooooooooon....

Why are "my opinions" or "my properties" relevant to this discussion?
Sure, you're not the first one to call me troll (not the first one to retract, either), and I have been famously rash in the past. I usually reserve this for when I'm presented with extremely poor, repetitive, or outright false excuses.

Where have I called you crazy or insane?

I have definitely referred to your interpretation of the FSF as absurd, and even later as insane, specially when I thought it was something Jolla had published.

I still think it is an absurd argument: I don't know of anyone else doing it that way, and it leads to a conclusion that directly contradicts the GPLv3 FAQ itself, in addition to other, more absurd conclusions (e.g. , why would the Affero clause be needed if mere "users" of the work are already entitled to the source?). But it is a fact that at least something is mentioned in the GPLv3 FAQ, so perhaps it is not such an uncommon interpretation. I was curious, at least at the beginning.

I have also called your messages FUD. You are still spurting out FUD in this very message. See below.

The entire discussion starts when I ask about that specific example, because I smelled BS (my very first post on this thread). At the time I even offered an escape route, since _maybe_ there was indeed some Dutch lawyer that had interpreted the GPLv3 in that specific way. It would have made, at least, for an entertaining read. And I would have been forced to shut up (or email that lawyer).

But then it became obvious that you just made up the example. Which basically means you are just spreading FUD about the GPLv3. Trying to muddle what is otherwise a pretty clear definition into your own, in order to confuse the public and instill fear about the license.

And the "Dutch museum tablet" is just one example of this FUD. You prefixed it with "Dutch", as if hinting that it was a story that really happened in this world. That a Dutch museum somewhere actually had a problem with the GPLv3 and hey, "it could happen to you!". But the story has not actually happened, has it? At least nothing appears in a cursory web search and my repeated questions into it have been responded with annoyance.

It is a story you made up, and that should make anyone suspicious, because why would you make up stories that appear to back your interpretation of the license? I can only think of one answer: because you are trying to instill fear, uncertainty and doubt about it. I am not trying to claim malice, though. Perhaps it is genuine ignorance, or just to try to defend Jolla somehow. But Jolla needs no defense.

And you mentioned other examples (such as the GPLv3 being incompatible with ATMs because, according to you, users of the ATM would be entitled to the encryption keys of the machine, apparently), which are even more far-fetched, and that I didn't pursue. Suffice to say, they are similarly absurd.


And, to top it off: despite 2 pages of discussion, you still spurt again exactly the same theory about loaned devices being incompatible with the GPLv3 here in this line, as if it were evidently true, and as if nothing of the past 2 pages of discussion mattered. Never miss an opportunity for FUD, right? Well I will not miss my opportunity to rebuke it for the nth time: It is not true. It is directly contradicted by the GPLv3 FAQ.

Your only rebuke for the FAQ item has been a very cloudy argument which attacks the authors of the GPLv3, claiming they "deliberately" lie about their own license on their own supporting documents (for some unknown purpose). An argument that is again completely unsubstantiated with any source whatsoever, and thus yet another gratuitous attempt at FUD.

Your next argument, I believe, is going to be that "I had a newspaper article about the Dutch museum story, but my dog ate it, so I can't link it to you".

Yes, I demand sources for your claims when they smell like BS.
Life is so easy when I can just spurt whatever I want on a public discussion forum and get annoyed when people call me on it.

Where exactly? Notice that when I rebuke one of your arguments, I always emphasize which one it is. (E.g. I don't know how many more times I will have to repeat "Dutch museum story"). I always mention the argument or even quote the exact sentence. You don't. I am forced to guess which link I apparently ignored.

I am yet to see where is the "fact" which contradicts my view. Actually, I am yet set to see where are the "facts". Facts, facts is exactly what I am asking from you. You claim to understand the license in a specific way that no one else does. You claim that Google doesn't ship GPLv3 software, yet it turns out they do. You claim that Jolla doesn't ship GPLv3 software, yet it turned out they actually do!

And I'm most definitely NOT claiming that the GPLv3 imposes NO extra restriction on top of the GPLv2. It's your list of "blocked usecases" (aka the "Dutch museum story") that I have a problem with. You just quote GPLv3 myth over myth.

And again trying to paint it as a GPLv3 issue for no reason...

E pur, they ship GPLv3 software already, check your /usr/share/licenses/ folder...

EDIT:
Extra disclaimer: I like discussing politics, and effectively like discussing software politics even more. I acknowledge my words are harsh. But I try to criticize the arguments/messages and never the person, and in fact in my mind I will disassociate the author of the posts from the content of the posts themselves (which kind of explains why I'm harsh -- treating you like a generic PR person and forgetting I'm not always dealing with people who are used to my style ). So if anything seems offensive, I didn't really mean it as criticism towards you personally, and hope you are not angry (I'm not).