I think one thing that keeps "slipping you up" is that you think no one can 
modify, explicitly, implicitly or otherwise, the GPL or LGPL options.  And you 
keep saying the licenses are copyrighted.  That's utterly non-applicable.

As I've repeatedly pointed out, hundreds of Linux projects have IP that is in 
violation of Sections 7 and 11.  The Linux kernel alone has countless issues - 
some from direct doners (as I've used IBM as an example).  And many other 
projects have gone beyond the implicit, but have added  explicit exceptions.  
So what can the FSF do?

The _most_ they can do is claim violation of the trademarks GPL or LGPL, 
respectively. To date, the FSF hasn't done this. Their lawyers work out the 
differences as best as they can. But should the FSF wish to change that stance, 
they'd has a very tough time due to "lack of prior and current enforcement" 
against other.

And trust me, it wouldn't be the first time Sun has used that.  Fedora(TM) 
anyone?  ;-)

Which is why the FSF created v3.  Frankly and legally, they _should_ call it 
something else than GPL.  Otherwise, the common law is _not_
favorable if the FSF wishes to start enforcing trademarks (as numbers or 
versions are often inapplicable).  No matter how many times Red Hat  
re-clarified its trademark usage, they still couldn't dodge that issue either.

You can keep beating this like a dead horse, and act like OpenOffice.org is 
some "exception" and somehow OpenXML has introduced something new (let alone it 
at least has a public declaration from MS, unlike prior formats). Or you can 
admit that you're blowing smoke about nothing, because it's popular to join the 
"Linux McCarthies" as I've appropriately coined them.

Just like the person who first instigated this thread, because LPI is "in bed 
with" Novell.  THINK ABOUT IT!  ;-)

I'm not responding further because everything that can be explained and 
re-explained and re-explained over and over and over again has been explained 
by me (among others).

--
Sent from my Treo
_______________________________________________
lpi-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-discuss

Reply via email to