Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 12:56:30 -0700 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Cc: j mckitrick <jcm@FreeBSD-uk.eu.org>, Wes Peters <wes@softweyr.com>, Dirk Myers <dirkm@teleport.com> Subject: Re: BSD, .Net comments - any reponse to this reasoning? Message-ID: <3B4A0C6E.7A7E96B2@mindspring.com> References: <20010630174743.A85268@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> <20010630173455.T344@teleport.com> <20010701032900.A93049@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> <20010701132353.W344@teleport.com> <20010702152649.A18127@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> <3B449C54.EC88E204@softweyr.com> <20010705184811.A78227@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> <20010709011028.A2736@hub.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
David O'Brien wrote: > NO. The FSF holds the copyright to insure it is *defendable*. > If GCC, et. al. was not fully owned by them it would be quite > hard to sue someone over abuse of copyright or license. Actually, they say that, but it's not true: they could bring a class action, no problem. > Same reason UC-Berkeley/CSFG did the same for BSD. That's a different case: they wanted to distribute the code under a simple license, and could not grant the rights they wanted to grant without the blanket. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3B4A0C6E.7A7E96B2>