Rick Campbell <rick(a)campbellcentral.org> writes:
> To put the question back to you. What if Microsoft were to view
> XEmacs as a spec and, without using any GPLed code, implement a
> fully compatible, fully functional 95/98/NT implementation.
I would be irritated, but that would ethically (or "morally" or
however) be OK with me. Specifically, I definitely don't want
Microsoft using *my* code.
> It doesn't particularly bother me that XEmacs is distributed under
> the GPL and I don't think it's avoidable given its roots. However,
> I certainly encourage people to release free code into the Public
> Domain or at least to use a less restrictive copyright than the GPL.
I understand your point even if I don't feel the same way.
Personally, I prefer GPL.
> Stallman's lawyers convinced him that, if he has an assignment
> paper for every contributor, all of the source would be under
> his control, and the FSF would be able to sue.
>
> Be that as it may, I still believe that an FSF suit against
> Microsoft would be a joke.
Why do you think so? The NeXT did quit.
> I am not a lawyer, so I don't know how to answer your sentence.
> I know that Stallman didn't just invent the assignments; he got
> the legal advice.
>
> It strike me as what I like to call ``a rationalization so good it
> almost makes a reason''. Ultimately, RMS likes to be in control,
> period.
Yup.
--
Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic(a)srce.hr> | Student at FER Zagreb, Croatia
--------------------------------+--------------------------------
- Now what did we learn from this?
- I learned what my liver looks like!