Michael Poole wrote:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>>>It is not his interpretation of copyright law, but his interpretation
>>>of the license, that is incorrect.
>>
>>It's a unilateral license. It can't mean anything but what he intends
>>it to mean.
>
> Reference, please? That is Alice in Wonderland logic ("Words mean
> exactly what I want them to mean, neither more nor less."). I hope
> that a license means what is written.
The University of Washington interpreted "copy, modify, and distribute"
to mean "copy, modify, or distribute". Debian respected that
interpretation.
>>>Telling him that may not be nice, but nobody suggested the right way
>>>to deal with SCO was being nice to them, either. If someone insists
>>>that his copyright is being infringed, we should stop distributing
>>>*his* code. It is not fair to other parties that his complaints
>>>should cause the removal of their code.
Those other parties are distributing non-free software (also known as
firmware), so their interests are not Debian's interests.
- Josh Triplett
