On Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 01:25:08AM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> > Troll Tech indicates it is their intention to catch people who are not
> > distributing code to cough up a copy.
>
> Well, if that were the case, why does Section 6 kick in only when there is a
> distribution?
Because the person who put it there as written didn't consider that? It
sure wasn't considered when the argument about it happened a year ago.
> > Stark contrast to what you claim
> > here. Their intent seems to be about 9/10 of what a license on a piece of
> > software means in the US at least, based on what little case law there is
> > on the matter.
>
> That may be, but it's not their "inner thoughts" that count, but their intent
> *as evidenced by the language chosen in the contract". So since Section 6
> clearly indicates there must first be a distribution, that's their intent. No
> shortage of case law on that.
There's also no shortage of case law which seems to indicate that
regarding a software license, what the Copyright holder wants a license to
mean is what it means.
All of this is totally irrelivant. It's still a point of contention with
the GPL any way you slice it as written. I do not see the relevance of
this subthread to the main issue at hand, other than just arguing for the
sake of argument. I haven't got time for that.
--
Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@debian.org> Debian Linux developer
http://tank.debian.net GnuPG key pub 1024D/DCF9DAB3 sub 2048g/3F9C2A43
http://www.debian.org 20F6 2261 F185 7A3E 79FC 44F9 8FF7 D7A3 DCF9 DAB3
2.3.1 has been released. Folks new to this game should remember that
2.3.* releases are development kernels, with no guarantees that they
will not cause your system to do horrible things like corrupt its
disks, catch fire, or start running Mindcraft benchmarks.
-- Slashdot
Attachment:
pgpNsD1CbmfUw.pgp
Description: PGP signature