> > > What matters is *my* intent in *choosing* the GPLv2, not *his* > > > intent in writing it. > > > > I beg to differ. By adopting _his_ license you adopted his view. [...] > > ianal, but fortunately that's not what the law is. The license says what > it says, and that is what controls. The intent of the author (of Linus > and other copyright holders) is a secondary source of information /if > and only if/ any ambiguity of meaning arises (as determined by a judge, > not by you or me). But the opinion and intent of RMS (unless adopted by > Linus) is quite immaterial.
I agree with the "/if and only if/ any ambiguity of meaning arises" part. I'm sorry I didn't make that clear before. However if that situation arises (i.e. the judge decides there is an ambiguity) then as far as my experience tells me it is the intention of the author (RMS et al in this case) that counts. But I erred before... Best wishes, Michael -- Technosis GmbH, Geschäftsführer: Michael Gerdau, Tobias Dittmar Sitz Hamburg; HRB 89145 Amtsgericht Hamburg Vote against SPAM - see http://www.politik-digital.de/spam/ Michael Gerdau email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG-keys available on request or at public keyserver
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
