Re: DFSG and GPL -- source retention
rjk@greenend.org.uk writes:
> Should be it be interpreted that way? Well, IANAL. But I would say
> that someone who assumed "written" to imply a .message file without
> asking the copyright holder what they thought would be on distinctly
> shaky ground.
Look, if someone is going to come after you for distributing GPL
software online without a paper slip in 19-fucking-98, no
interpretation, no lawyerly advice, no nothing is going to stop you
from getting trouble form that person in one way or another, even if
the "paper" part is thrown out. They obviously would have to have
alot of money and time to bring such a spurious charge to bear, and
I'm sure if it was laughed out of court, they could just bring
another using any other extremely devious reading of the english
language.
> 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 suppose we should just stop dealing with software all together
without a lawyer explaining to us just how much a month in protection
fees we're gonna have to pay to stop from being sued. If we descend
to this type of paranoia, the result will be paralysis.
Reply to: