On Thu, 06 Nov 2003, Brian T. Sniffen wrote: > Mark Schreiber <mark7@andrew.cmu.edu> writes: >> Normally, this is not a problem -- a company may remove offending >> code and do a re-release. However, Small Company no longer controls >> Smart Writer. Macrosoft is in charge. > > You are confused about several points. Here's the first one: Small > Company gave a license to use its copyrighted works to those who > received copies of Smart Writer (GPL Edition). If it couldn't have > granted a license to use part of that package, that's fine: the > license to the rest persists. So RMS and the users and distributors > of FLI are not affected by this. Estoppel even further restricts the ability of Macrosoft to prevail against individuals who were using Smart Writer code. [I would imagine that this would lead to the GPL being applied "in effect" to all of the code it could possibly be applied to. Unfortunatly (or fortunatly?) there is no case law that I am aware of applying to this issue.] Don Armstrong -- You could say she lived on the edge... Well, maybe not exactly on the edge, just close enough to watch other people fall off. -- hugh macleod http://www.gapingvoid.com/batch8.htm http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature