> On Jul 16, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Kenner) wrote: > > > the issue here is not what the license actually *is*, but how one is > > to *know* what it is. > > I guess if you have any doubts as to the license the distributor wants > you to believe to be applicable, you can (i) ask the copyright holder,
You can't ask the copyright holder because you need the representation of the distributor as to who the copyright holder actually is! This is a key point. If you give me a file that purports to be a modified version of GCC, how do I know who else, if anybody, might have a copyright claim on that version? That's why I need a license agreement with you: to know exactly what the terms of use of the software are. If you warrant to me "that software is copyrighted by the FSF under the terms of GPLv2" and I rely on that claim, it turns out to be false, and I get harmed (e.g., sued for copyright or patent infringement), I can come after you for damages.
