Alex Martelli wrote:
Until some judge passes some judgment, the intent and effect of GPL must
remain a matter of opinion. But RMS's opinion is probably more
meaningful than mine or yours -- certainly regarding intent, given his
role in designing that license.
But it may not have practical effect in an actual dispute. I believe that in some jurisdictions[1], the important piece of information in interpreting a license is the common understanding of what the license means between the disputing parties. The author of the license, if he is not one of the disputing parties, has no say in what the license means for that dispute.
[1] IANAL; TINLA. This is from my memory of what I read in Lawrence Rosen's book[2] that I don't have in front of me right now. See his book, chapter 12, I think, for more details.
[2] http://www.rosenlaw.com/oslbook.htm
If he's badly erred, and one day a judge endorses your opinion and says that a program which copies no GPL source cannot be infected by GPL, ah well -- then I guess GPL is badly designed as to putting its intents into practice. But until there is some strong basis to think otherwise, I believe it's prudent to assume RMS is probably right, and your statement therefore badly wrong.
I've always found, especially in light of what I wrote above, the best thing to do is to ask the author himself what he wants. If he subscribes to an unreasonable interpretation of the license, it's better that you found out quickly and avoid getting sued even though you might end up winning. You also avoid inadvertantly stepping on anyone's toes and garnering ill-will even if you never go to court.
-- Robert Kern [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"In the fields of hell where the grass grows high Are the graves of dreams allowed to die." -- Richard Harter -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
