Re: [PROPOSAL] Full text of GPL must be included
John Galt <galt@inconnu.isu.edu> writes:
> Lawyers are involved? This makes it imperitive that no change ever get
> off the ground ATM. Compromising around a lawyer is like bleeding around
> a shark: you don't do it twice.
I have no idea what "ATM" means.
I know a Randroid might think all lawyers are the same, but amazingly,
they are not.
I thought it should be obvious that the GPL was drafted by attorneys,
and of course, complicated legal questions should be addressed with
the assistance of those who are experts in the law.
The FSF's usual counsel is a law professor who donates his time; he's
not some corporate stooge only concerned for money. What else would
you think? And he works for the FSF, not the other way round.
And, I can certainly affirm, RMS makes up his own mind. No lawyer
ever could make it up for him. Does he strike you as the sort of
person to just do whatever a lawyer says? In any case, the reason
he's asking them is because I mentioned to him some cases and
questions people were asking here, and some of them represented issues
he had not considered, so he thought he should ask them what they
think. Exactly how to interpret licenses is a *legal* question, after
all.
Thomas
Reply to: