Re: DFSG vs Pine's legal notices: where exactly is the gotcha?
David Turner <email@example.com> writes:
> On Tue, 2002-11-12 at 14:45, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > Oh, I remember this. The sophists at UWash claim that:
> > >
> > > "Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its
> > > documentation for any purpose and without fee to the University of
> > > Washington is hereby granted,"
> > >
> > > does not mean that you can modify and then distribute.
> > Unfortunately, it turns out that the UWash lawyers were right about
> > the way these clauses are understood by the courts; it sucks, but
> > there it is. They didn't create the distinction, they just decided to
> > use it.
> Which courts? Please cite a case.
I don't know the details; you should probably ask the FSF for the