FSF's distribution policies was: Drift between libgmp and gpg's version
Stainless Steel Rat
ratinox at peorth.gweep.net
Tue Dec 7 19:10:25 CET 1999
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
* Simon Weijgers <simon at weijgers.com> on Tue, 07 Dec 1999
| To my knowledege the same holds true for Linux, but I never hear anyone
| whine about that on the linux kernel mailinglist.
Apples and eggs. Just because software is distributed under the GPL does
not mean that it is also owned by the FSF. The issue here ownership of
copyright, not licensing.
| Yeah I know quite offtopic, but I'm rather curious of what the legal
| consequences are of not knowing who owns what code as well the rather
| arbitrary >10 `rule'. Is that figure based on something like a prior
| ruling? And what would be the consequences for example if a judge
| were to disagree with that figure?
Worst case, according to the FSF's lawyers, is a lawsuit that would break
the FSF, fiscally and politically.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.0g (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Rat <ratinox at peorth.gweep.net> \ Warning: pregnant women, the elderly, and
Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ children under 10 should avoid prolonged
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ exposure to Happy Fun Ball.
More information about the Gnupg-devel