Re: Corel: No "internal" exemption in GPL

[Derek Balling]

At 06:20 AM 9/23/99 +0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>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.

Considering RMS subscribes to this list (I think)... it could be argued you 
just did raise the issue again... :)

D