Re: DFSG and GPL -- source retention
rjk@greenend.org.uk wrote:
> There's still a problem if "written" is interpreted to mean "on
> paper"; you can't give a paper offer to everyone who visits your FTP
> site.
For a long time I thought this meant "written on paper". But recently
I realized there is no reason to assume that. The GPL itself uses
"written" in four places; none of those say anything about paper,
and one of them even refers to a program.
> If the copyright holder thinks "written" allows .message then whatever
> RMS meant by the term you're OK as only the copyright holder is in a
> position to sue you. If they think it means "on paper" then you could
> find yourself settling the question in court, which would be risky and
> expensive.
I don't think the copyright holder gets to decide this. Proving in court
that a .message file is not "written" could be very difficult ;-) It
would probably be thrown out at once.
Richard Braakman
Reply to: