On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 01:23:05PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote: > I'll accept that. I have published on this particular legal myth last > year at http://technocrat.net/d/2007/3/22/16651
Your article states your reasoning, which is substantially the same as your first post to this thread. However, it doesn't cite any legal authorities at all, whether case law, statutes, or secondary texts. Nor does it show any evidence that Linus's modifications to his license were legally valid for code that was not his own, or that changing the prelude to the GPL2 in the main kernel license file has the effect you imply it does. I'm not saying you're definitely wrong, but just that my understanding does contradict yours, and that my understanding is based on a serious effort to become an informed layman. If Debian does decide to follow your theory or investigate its legal validity, I expect that all SPI directors, including myself if I am on the board then, will be willing to get the appropriate legal advice at that time. - Jimmy Kaplowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] (PS - Please only reply if you have more to add; this thread is getting long enough already.) _______________________________________________ Spi-general mailing list Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
