Quoting Andy Sy ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > Reading the license goes without saying but if one is not > clear on some points, then one should ask the people who > wrote the license what their intentions are.
The intentions of the people who wrote a licence are, as a matter of law, _irrelevant_ to the question of their meaning as applied to a codebase. The judge would need to determine what licence grants the _copyright holders_ had expresed or implied. Under USA copyright law, which is reported to be similar to most other jurisdictions on account of treaty, copyright licences can be conferred orally, in writing, or through conduct. The judge would thus examine all available evidence as to the nature of the _owner's_ licence grant. The state of mind and intentions of the author of any document the owner chose to use as his licence grant would be irrelevant to that question. The above should also serve to clarify why Torvalds's expressed views on LKML are of legal significant (while RMS's are not): Torvalds's postings may at some point be adduced in court to attack or support attorneys' assertions as to what rights he (as primary copyright owner) has and has not granted, e.g., concerning proprietary kernel modules. This is one reason why I (and others) keep archives of his significant comments on the matter. (Again, above is not legal advice, and I'm not an attorney.) -- Cheers, Paranoia is the delusion that your enemies are organised. Rick Moen [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Philippine Linux Users Group. Web site and archives at http://plug.linux.org.ph To leave: send "unsubscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fully Searchable Archives With Friendly Web Interface at http://marc.free.net.ph To subscribe to the Linux Newbies' List: send "subscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
