They did raise the fact that they found the GPL vague on some issues,
like "what is distribution". It's not vague to me but then I have years
of experience in being talmudic about the GPL.
But I will raise with Stallman the fact that the GPL could use a definitions
appendix. Last time I raised that issue, he said something like he didn't
want to do that and then have them be defined later in copyright law in a way
that would conflict with the GPL. That seems reasonable, but I will raise the
issue again.
Thanks
Bruce
- Re: Corel: No "internal" exemption in GP... Forrest J. Cavalier III
- Re: Corel: No "internal" exemption ... Justin Wells
- Re: Corel: No "internal" exempt... Mark Shewmaker
- Re: Corel: No "internal" exemption in GP... bruce
- Re: Corel: No "internal" exemption ... Derek Balling
- Re: Corel: No "internal" exemption in GP... Forrest J. Cavalier III
- Re: Corel: No "internal" exemption ... Derek J. Balling
- Re: Corel: No "internal" exemption in GP... Forrest J. Cavalier III
- Re: Corel: No "internal" exemption in GP... Forrest J. Cavalier III
- Re: Corel: No "internal" exemption ... Kristofer
- Re: Corel: No "internal" exemption in GP... bruce
- Re: Corel: No "internal" exemption ... Derek Balling
- Re: Corel: No "internal" exemption in GP... Forrest J. Cavalier III
- Re: Corel: No "internal" exemption ... Justin Wells
- Re: Corel: No "internal" exemption in GP... bruce

