David Kastrup wrote: [...] > You'll find that judges are no mechanical idiots.
Let's take a look at US appelate court's (panel of three judges) interetation of the GPL: <quote> Authors who distribute their works under this license, devised by the Free Software Foundation, Inc., authorize not only copying but also the creation of derivative worksand the license prohibits charging for the derivative work. People may make and distribute derivative works if and only if they come under the same license terms as the original work. Thus the GPL propagates from user to user and revision to revision: neither the original author, nor any creator of a revised or improved version, may charge for the software or allow any successor to charge. Copyright law, usually the basis of limiting reproduction in order to collect a fee, ensures that open-source software remains free: any attempt to sell a derivative work will violate the copyright laws, even if the improver has not accepted the GPL. The Free Software Foundation calls the result copyleft. </quote> http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-2454_008.pdf What do you find, dak? regards, alexander. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
