On Mon, 2003-06-02 at 16:37, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
> Sure, and it's also perfectly plausible that RMS is a secret employee
> of Microsoft and Chinese double agent plotting the use of free
> software to assassinate the Dalai Lama. But this is debian-legal not
> debian-wacko-conspiracy-theory.
The FSF has already used a copyright assignment against the wishes of
the original author of the documentation, who objects to the added
invariant sections.
This assertion, by the author, has been made publicly on this mailing
list. It is in the archive at:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200304/msg00256.html
> Consider the current SCO/IBM brouhaha - it's a shame the FSF doesn't
> have assignments for the Linux kernel which would put it in a position
> to stand up for the community against SCO's bullying.
Yeah, it's really a shame that instead of the underfunded FSF standing
up to SCO its IBM's over-funded legal department[1].
And several other people (like LinuxTag) are taking on SCO, too. The FSF
could join in if it felt like it. And --- this just in --- SCO isn't
doing to well; they've been ordered to shut up.[0]
> It is no
> coincidence that SCO chose to attack something that the FSF doesn't
> have legal paperwork on.
Sure it is. Attacking "linux" makes more press than attacking "gcc" or
"hurd."
[0] http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,1114885,00.asp
[1] "If anything, IBM's legal pockets are deeper than
Microsoft's, and the company is no stranger to
controversial legal entanglements. So far, IBM shows
no sign of caving."
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,1115134,00.asp
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part