From owner-freebsd-advocacy Mon Jul 9 8:49:16 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Received: from serenity.mcc.ac.uk (serenity.mcc.ac.uk [130.88.200.93]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD8E237B403 for ; Mon, 9 Jul 2001 08:49:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jcm@freebsd-uk.eu.org) Received: from dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org ([130.88.200.97] ident=root) by serenity.mcc.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.05 #6) id 15JdHS-0006Cx-00; Mon, 9 Jul 2001 16:49:02 +0100 Received: (from jcm@localhost) by dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org (8.11.3/8.11.1) id f69FmwL42839; Mon, 9 Jul 2001 16:48:58 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from jcm) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 16:48:57 +0100 From: j mckitrick To: "David O'Brien" Cc: Wes Peters , Dirk Myers Subject: Re: BSD, .Net comments - any reponse to this reasoning? Message-ID: <20010709164857.B42753@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> References: <20010630174743.A85268@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> <20010630173455.T344@teleport.com> <20010701032900.A93049@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> <20010701132353.W344@teleport.com> <20010702152649.A18127@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> <3B449C54.EC88E204@softweyr.com> <20010705184811.A78227@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> <20010709011028.A2736@hub.freebsd.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <20010709011028.A2736@hub.freebsd.org>; from freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org on Mon, Jul 09, 2001 at 01:10:28AM -0700 Sender: owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Mon, Jul 09, 2001 at 01:10:28AM -0700, David O'Brien wrote: | On Thu, Jul 05, 2001 at 06:48:11PM +0100, j mckitrick wrote: | > I thing my word choice obscured my intent: | > | > The FSF holds the copyright to insure that the PROJECT will remain forever | > GPL'ed. | | NO. The FSF holds the copyright to insure it is *defendable*. If GCC, | et. al. was not fully owned by them it would be quite hard to sue someone | over abuse of copyright or license. Same reason UC-Berkeley/CSFG did the | same for BSD. Hmmm. Well, that does make sense, though I find it hard to believe that a great deal of GPL code couldn't be easily 'stolen' in the sense of using it and not giving back. If it isn't GUI code (in some cases even *that* could be explained away) and if it doesn't produce identical output, I find it hard to believe anyone could *prove* in a court of law that binary A includes source B, which is GPL protected. Jonathon -- Microsoft complaining about the source license used by Linux is like the event horizon calling the kettle black. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message