🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <C0JrIH.BEK@ssr.com> 
sdb@ssr.com (Scott Ballantyne) writes:

>In article <1993Jan7.123025.19069@husc3.harvard.edu>
>zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:

MZ:
>>You haven't read the GPL.  The FSF legally owns all code licensed under
>>the GPL, under *any* reasonable definition of intellectual property.

SB:
>If the FSF owns all code licensed under the GPL, then why can't they
>legally prevent people from running GNU products on their Apple
>computers? FSF can't legally violate the terms of the GPL anymore than
>you or I can, which is why you see many messages from rms asking
>people not to help get GNU stuff up on Apple computers, but not one
>message from a FSF lawyer threatening a suit if anyone runs emacs on a
>mac.

Sure they can, -- insofar as they explicitly reserve the right to
revise the terms of the GPL, which is copyrighted in their corporate
name, all they would have to do, is add yet another restrictive clause
on the copying and modification of their software.

SB:
>If all I can legally do is ask you to please not use my software, and
>please no one show you how to use my software, that doesn't seem like
>a reasonable definition of ownership.

See above.

SB:
>Really, the FSF is more of a caretaker than an owner of GPL covered
>software.

To quote Alfred Jarry, "Ha ha."

>sdb
>---
>sdb@ssr.com

cordially,
mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
"Les beaulx bastisseurs nouveaulx de pierres mortes ne sont escriptz
en mon livre de vie.  Je ne bastis que pierres vives: ce sont hommes."