From: bogstad@blaze.cs.jhu.edu (Bill Bogstad) Subject: Re: Recent GPL interpretations and Linux Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1993 04:27:48 GMT
In article <21aqnh$3oo@news.u.washington.edu> tzs@stein2.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
>....
>I posted a pointer to the gnu.misc.discuss thread on misc.legal.computing,
>in the hopes of drawing in a copyright lawyer or two. It is their opinions
>you need to get, not RMS's. The fact that RMS wrote GPL doesn't give him
>any special power to interpret it. ....
Actually, it is my understanding that the Free Software Foundation
had an actual lawyer write the GPL for them with RMS and company providing
information on what they wanted and the lawyer providing the legal mumbo
jumbo to make it happen. Or at least this is what I remember from years
back when it was first being discussed. You see RMS et al. are really
serious about this and have done what they could to make the GPL work as
they wante it too. Not that a lawyer having written it necesarily makes it
anymore enforceable or "correct" from their point of view. The important
thing isn't what a lawyer thinks, it is what a judge thinks (or several
judges if the ruling is appealed).
Bill Bogstad