From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Sep 4 23:49:11 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3BE216A4BF for ; Thu, 4 Sep 2003 23:49:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from storm.FreeBSD.org.uk (storm.FreeBSD.org.uk [194.242.157.42]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F25843F3F for ; Thu, 4 Sep 2003 23:49:10 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mark@grondar.org) Received: from storm.FreeBSD.org.uk (Ugrondar@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by storm.FreeBSD.org.uk (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h856n8P2097133; Fri, 5 Sep 2003 07:49:08 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from mark@grondar.org) Received: (from Ugrondar@localhost)h856n8wR097132; Fri, 5 Sep 2003 07:49:08 +0100 (BST) X-Authentication-Warning: storm.FreeBSD.org.uk: Ugrondar set sender to mark@grondar.org using -f Received: from grondar.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])h856kTqi034034; Fri, 5 Sep 2003 07:46:29 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from mark@grondar.org) From: Mark Murray Message-Id: <200309050646.h856kTqi034034@grimreaper.grondar.org> To: Brett Glass In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 04 Sep 2003 21:02:19 MDT." <4.3.2.7.2.20030904205452.03b38c40@localhost> Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2003 07:46:29 +0100 Sender: mark@grondar.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.2 required=5.0 tests=EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,FROM_NO_LOWER,IN_REP_TO, QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REPLY_WITH_QUOTES version=2.55 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.55 (1.174.2.19-2003-05-19-exp) cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Ugly Huge BSD Monster X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Non technical items related to the community List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2003 06:49:11 -0000 Brett Glass writes: > So, yes, if you have read GPLed code, you are at serious risk. At any > time, the FSF could claim that your work was derivative and had to be > given away for free. You might prevail in court, but doing so could be > just as costly as losing the proceeds from your work. Is that the extent of the 'risk'? Pure supposition? I'll start worrying when there is an enforceable precedent in my area. I'm more worried about the risk of losing concentration while driving, and hurting someone as a consequence. M -- Mark Murray iumop ap!sdn w,I idlaH