On 28 Aug 2003 03:22:47 +0100 Scott James Remnant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > -(which makes passes at compilers) written > +(which makes passes at compilers) written > > the difference is in the trailing whitespace, but that's irrelevant. > > These changes were made to part of an Invariant section of the GNU Emacs > manual, that's relevant. > > What's also relevant is that anybody running 'cvs update' on their > source and receiving this patch; and as this occurred just before the > 21.3 release, anyone applying a "difference file" to their source rather > than downloading the new complete distribution; broke the following term > of the GNU Free Documentation License.
I agree that this is an ambiguous case; one side would want to convince the judge that the user was the one making the modification. The other side would want to convince the judge that it was the copyright holder distributing the new file, using their distribution method of choice. So the question then becomes, "are there any judges out there who would consider 'cvs update' from the copyright holder's distribution point user modification as opposed to copyright holder distribution?" It's irritating that we're forced to honestly consider what lawyers and judges would say because of bad wording and gray areas of the license, but if we're going to do so let's do it realistically. Any lawyers around want to comment on the above question?
pgpUvekDeR8BO.pgp
Description: PGP signature
