On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 11:39:21PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> On 5/19/05, Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@becket.net> wrote:
> [snip arguments that might have been worthy of rebuttal on
> debian-legal five months ago]
> I'm not trying to be snotty about this, but if you want to engage in
> the debate about the proper legal framework in which to understand the
> GPL, I think you would do best to at least dip into recent
> debian-legal archives and also look at some of the precedents cited
> back in December and January. At this point, there seem to be quite a
> few people who agree that the FSF's stance ("copyright-based license")
> and the far-from-novel one that you advance ("unilateral license /
> donee beneficiaries") are untenable in the jurisdictions with whose
> law they are to some degree familiar.
So? Then they should take it up with their local legislative body and/or
the FSF. Debian doesn't have a duty to account for every individual broken
jurisdiction on the planet.
The legal questions surrounding Waste are much more likely to center on
whether the people acting at Nullsoft actually had the legal authority to
offer people a license to the code at issue.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature