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

[tb@becket.net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)]

John Galt <galt@inconnu.isu.edu> writes:

> www.ll.georgetown.edu/Fed-Ct/Circuit/fed/opinions/97-1425.html 
> 
> Reasonable man and estoppel are linked, and a choice quote:
> 
> A delay of more than six years raises a presumption that it is
>    unreasonable, inexcusable, and prejudicial.
> 
> _Wanlass_ (the URL above) refers to _Kodak_ 114 F.3d 1547, 1559, 42 USPQ2d
> 1737, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 1997 where they quote "known or in the exercise of
> reasonable diligence should have known"

This case is only about laches, which is not what I'm talking about.
In any case, let's take a step back.  What exactly is your motive
here?

RMS's is to keep the GPL strong, so that EvilCorp can't twist and
evade it in a way that hurts Debian and everyone else.

Manoj's seems to be to keep things simple, to avoid needless makework,
to keep the distribution clean and lean.

Mine is to try and understand all sides of this as best as I can, in
the hopes that people can get along.

All of these seem to be good goals to have people pursuing.

But your goal seems to be to prove that the GPL cannot be enforced
against EvilCorp in certain cases where we all should hope it can be.


Thomas