On Mon, 2003-06-02 at 16:37, Barak Pearlmutter wrote: > Sure, and it's also perfectly plausible that RMS is a secret employee > of Microsoft and Chinese double agent plotting the use of free > software to assassinate the Dalai Lama. But this is debian-legal not > debian-wacko-conspiracy-theory.
The FSF has already used a copyright assignment against the wishes of the original author of the documentation, who objects to the added invariant sections. This assertion, by the author, has been made publicly on this mailing list. It is in the archive at: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200304/msg00256.html > Consider the current SCO/IBM brouhaha - it's a shame the FSF doesn't > have assignments for the Linux kernel which would put it in a position > to stand up for the community against SCO's bullying. Yeah, it's really a shame that instead of the underfunded FSF standing up to SCO its IBM's over-funded legal department[1]. And several other people (like LinuxTag) are taking on SCO, too. The FSF could join in if it felt like it. And --- this just in --- SCO isn't doing to well; they've been ordered to shut up.[0] > It is no > coincidence that SCO chose to attack something that the FSF doesn't > have legal paperwork on. Sure it is. Attacking "linux" makes more press than attacking "gcc" or "hurd." [0] http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,1114885,00.asp [1] "If anything, IBM's legal pockets are deeper than Microsoft's, and the company is no stranger to controversial legal entanglements. So far, IBM shows no sign of caving." http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,1115134,00.asp
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
