www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Schaefer <joe_schae...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: fair use (was Re: What licenses in category X satisfy criterion #2?)
Date Sat, 15 Mar 2008 01:59:11 GMT

--- Robert Burrell Donkin <rdonkin@apache.org> wrote:

> On Thu, 2008-03-13 at 10:07 -0700, Henri Yandell
> wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
> > More important right now would be the issues of
> what the FSF's
> > non-compiled/dynamic-linked stance is, 
> 
> +1
> 
> even when we've disagreed with the FSF's
> interpretation we've respect
> the spirit and intention of their licenses (as
> expressed by the FSF).
> IMO this approach should be continued.

I just dug this up:

http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL

It directly conflicts with what I said about 
the situation for spamassassin.  According
to that url, if spamassassin acquired a GPL
dependency, it would have to license everything
under the GPL.  (The FSF apparently believes
copyright extends to actual processes, not
just files on the filesystem).



      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and 
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.  http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ



---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only.  Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF.  See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org


Mime
View raw message