Re: [PROPOSAL] Full text of GPL must be included

[John Galt <galt@inconnu.isu.edu>]

On 2 Dec 2000, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:

> John Galt <galt@inconnu.isu.edu> writes:
> 
> > Widespread ignorance of the law is.  Name one binary packaging system that
> > always includes the GPL when necessary.  Five years without a correct
> > implementation is evidence of widespread ignorance or a changing playing
> > field, take your choice.
> 
> It's quite relevant if one was aware of the facts at the time.  RMS
> was unaware that Debian packages did not all include the GPL; he
> assumed I think that they did without worrying about it much, and it
> only came up recently.  So the FSF did not knowingly ignore the
> violation (if it is one), which is the important point with respect to
> estoppel.

First of all, knowledge is not that of the actors, but of the "reasonable
man".  The .deb archive standard contents were decided on when Debian was
still a FSF project, and they certainly haven't been modified to remove
the license after the separation.  Thus the decision to not have the GPL
within the .deb archive was made with the participation of the FSF.  If
RMS didn't know, it was because he was not a "reasonable man", and not
because he had no means of knowing.

 
> Thomas
> 
> 
> --  
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
> 

-- 
 Customer:  "I'm running Windows '98"      Tech: "Yes."      Customer:
   "My computer isn't working now."     Tech: "Yes, you said that."

Who is John Galt?  galt@inconnu.isu.edu, that's who!