MOO-cows Mailing List Archive


Re: anyone ever gotten xerox to clarify the MOO licensebefore?

>>>>> "Roger" == Roger Crew <> writes:

    >> It would seem to me that since the MOO code is a derivitive
    >> work based on a previous work by Stephen White, aka ghond, that
    >> if he were to GPL the original work, then that would solve the
    >> whole
    >>> problem for once and for all:

    Roger> Keep in mind that the GPL has, to my knowledge, never
    Roger> actually been tested in court.

    Roger> I don't doubt that Stallman and the FSF lawyers did their
    Roger> homework and worked to craft something that has a good
    Roger> chance of standing up.  However, the fact remains that it's
    Roger> a sufficiently radical/novel use of copyright law that
    Roger> there's no guarantee that the conditions it imposes are
    Roger> enforceable; the wrong judge could easily rule otherwise.

Keep in mind, as you seem to have, that the FSF and the LPF have some
*VERY GOOD* lawyers helping them out with this stuff.  They were
instrumental in the Microsoft vs Borland case.  I contacted RMS myself
when faced with the case I worked on, and he refered me to the lawyer
that helped in the Borland case.  These people are very good indeed at
what they do -- both software and law!

--------  "And there came a writing to him from Elijah"  [2Ch 21:12]  --------
Robert Jay Brown III  1 847 705-0424
Elijah Laboratories Inc.;  37 South Greenwood Avenue;  Palatine, IL 60067-6328
-----  M o d e l i n g   t h e   M e t h o d s   o f   t h e   M i n d  ------

Follow-Ups: References:

Home | Subject Index | Thread Index