On Sun, Jul 21, 2002 at 06:30:05PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 01:25:42AM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote: > > > Requiring a binary file rename is also OK; I think we might even do this > > > now. > > Is it? Would you consider fileutils free under such a license? > > (You can change "ls" all you want as long as you rename the binary) > It seems to boil down to "forcing renames is free if it doesn't matter". > Forced renaming ls doesn't matter, since you can symlink it, and so > on. It'd just be really obnoxious. Uh, _technically_ you can symlink it (or write a wrapper), but _technically_ you could just mv it, too. But we try to adhere to the spirit as well as the letter of the license, don't we, which would stop us from doing that, don't we? Personally, although IANAL, I'd've expected that such obvious attempts at avoiding license restrictions wouldn't get you all that far with a judge either. We're not willing to let people use "dynamic linking" as a way of avoiding the GPL's tentacles, in a pretty similar situation. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.''
Attachment:
pgpE1P0jeOlOI.pgp
Description: PGP signature