In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Alex
Belits writes:
: > That is your interpretation. Other lawyers disagree with that
: > interpretation.
:
: No. This issue was beaten to death multiple times, large amount of
: software was created based on this, and its legality is absolutely
: certain by now.
No. You are wrong. The fact that large amounts of software has been
created is irrelevant. The GPL has never been adjudicated. That is a
fact. There is no legal precidence for any interpretation of its
terms and conditions as written. Until such time as it is
adjudicated, it is in doubt. Like you've said, this had been beaten
to death many times and I am quite sure of my facts. I have consulted
with atterneys investigating the possibility of using Linux and the
GPL of the kernel was a deal killer. It was too legally risky because
of the multitude of authors of Linux and the possible interpretations
of the GPL. That is the big reason why Linus' pronouncement on the
issue isn't necessarily legally firm ground. Any one of those authors
could challenge someone's non-release of driver source and have legal
standing to bring the suit. Unless you get all the authors to agree
to that, and the matter will remain risky.
The number of times it has been beaten to death on Usenet is
irrelevant. There are a number of issues that have been beaten to
death and have none-the-less proven to be wrong.
What is true is that if it is adjudicated and it goes against the
conventional wisdom, a lot of people are going to be very unhappy and
forced to do things they do not wish to do.
Warner
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
