On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 10:53 PM, Rick Moen <r...@linuxmafia.com> wrote:
> Quoting Henrik Ingo (henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi):
>> On this topic there are many opinions out there and little case law,
>> but personally I've always thought that if the FSF as the author of
>> the GPL thinks something is permitted, then at least that much must be
>> permitted and you can quite safely do that.
> In the general case (obviously excepting GNU packages), FSF is not the
> copyright holder and licensor.  Hence, it cannot speak properly to other
> licensors' intentions, and its opinions are not relevant to what such
> licensors are willing and able to permit.  (It would not in that case
> have standing in any related litigation, either, but that's a different
> subject.)

This is an important point, yes. Otoh the GPL is the same license for
everyone that uses it. At least in an ideal world it cannot apply in
one way to your software and another to mine, since it is the same
text. Lacking more legal precedent (on this particular topic) we can
only guess what the real answer is, but it seems the authors of the
license text should at least get a say in that general discussion,
even if they wouldn't have standing in some particular lawsuit.

+358-40-8211286 skype: henrik.ingo irc: hingo

My LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=9522559
License-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to