Re: GPL is not the only free licence, and FSF not the only holder

[John Lines <john@paladin.demon.co.uk>]

> > In addition the copyright has been assigned to FSF in only a small number of
> > cases. It may be that, to save wasted intellectual effort from all concerned,
> > the maintainers of packages where copyright has been assigned to the FSF should
> > include a copy of the GPL in those packages
> > (as an indication of willingness to maintain good relations with the copyright
> > holder - rather than as a precedent)

If we put a copy of the GPL into those binary packages where the FSF is the
upstream copyright holder then they can turn their attention to persuading
other distributions to do the same thing. It need not affect every Debian 
package.

> > 
> > This would free up the FSF lawyers to look at more interesting questions, such 
> > as,
> > if I am installing 20 servers with RedHat Linux, how many copies do I need to
> > buy ?
> 
> Zero.  It might help if you actually READ the GPL...  Toto, I've got a
> feeling we're not in Redmond anymore...
> 

I have read the GPL - have you read the contents of

 www.redhat.com/legal/legal_statement.html

I think that by focusing its attentions on trying to raise the awareness of the
GPL amongst those who are using Debian packages the FSF is aiming at the wrong
target.

I have no issue with paying money to RedHat - they are selling certification 
and
warm fuzzy feeling, but I do not like the impression which many corporate 
people have (incorrectly) that RedHat own the licenses for all the software 
they sell.

John Lines