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!