Re: DFSG vs Pine's legal notices: where exactly is the gotcha?
On Thu, 2002-11-14 at 02:22, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> writes:
>
> > On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 05:33:36PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > My suggestion is that you ask the FSF for their more detailed advice.
> >
> > What contact address is best for this purpose?
>
> I can never remember, so I always just write to gnu@gnu.org. In the
> instant case, I've already sent off a message. I'll report back what
> I hear.
In the future, write to licensing@gnu.org and put something in the
subject so that I know it's important.
Bradley Kuhn (FSF's executive director) thinks (and I agree) that UW's
interpretation of their license is completely crazy. But when copyright
holders make additional statements, and threaten to sue people who don't
abide by their interpretation, we prefer not to risk it. Anyway,
they've changed their license to make it clear that it's non-free.
There have been, as far as we know, no cases involving UW and PINE, and
no US court decisions about the language which UW misinterprets.
--
-Dave Turner
GPL Compliance Engineer, Free Software Foundation
Support my work: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=novalis&p=FSF
Reply to: