Re: [WASTE-dev-public] Do not package WASTE! UNAUTHORIZED SOFTWARE [Was: Re: Questions about waste licence and code.]
> > For the record, I disagree that this faq is "patently false".
> > It is, in places, a bit simplistic, but I wouldn't advise anyone
> > delve into those fine points of law unless they've retained
> > the services of a lawyer (at which point the FAQ is merely
> > an interesting commentary -- it has less weight than
> > professional advice).
On 5/19/05, Michael K. Edwards <email@example.com> wrote:
> The FAQ is not merely an "interesting commentary" -- it is the
> published stance of the FSF, to which its General Counsel refers all
And if you have retained counsel of your own, I'd let your
lawyer deal with that. If you haven't, then my "interesting
commentary" comment is irrelevant.
> Although I am not legally qualified to judge, I believe
> that he can have no reasonable basis under the law in his jurisdiction
> for many of the assertions that it contains, particularly the
> assertion that the GPL is a creature of copyright law and not an
> ordinary offer of contract. That may yet become a problem for him
> personally as well as for the FSF.
I don't find in the GPL FAQ any assertion that the GPL is not
to be considered an agreement under contract law.
I can only guess that you're objecting to the implication that
copyright law is somehow important to understanding the
I'm stopping here because I'm assuming that the rest of what
you wrote is somehow logically related to these assertions
which do not appear in the FAQ.