> I'm not sure whether you are right or wrong--but such a conclusion
> would be grossly unfair. I think a strong case would be made that
> existing practice wrt Linux is independent of existing practice wrt
> GNU, and that everyone involved knows that Linus's GPL is not the
> FSF's GPL. And I think that the FSF (and their lawyers) would
> advance this claim vigorously.
Well, that's a can of worms we DON'T want to open. What's to stop Microsoft
from claiming their own interpretaion of the GPL? The whole point behind the
GPL (and any license) is that it cannot be vaguely interpreted by various
individuals and companies.
> (Besides, it's really in nobody's best interest to take the GPL
> before a judge, so I think that rough consensus and community
> dynamics will continue to drive the interpretation of the GPL.)
Well, what if one company create a Linux application and used the "Linus GPL"
instead of the "FSF GPL" to defend its practices? I think there's some
situation going on right now about an company that released a non-GPL Linux
media player (or something like that) that links in someone else's GPL code.
Besides, isn't the "Linus GPL" somewhere between the "FSF GPL" and the LGPL?
-- Timur Tabi - ttabi@interactivesi.com Interactive Silicon - http://www.interactivesi.com
-- Timur Tabi - ttabi@interactivesi.com Interactive Silicon - http://www.interactivesi.com- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/