Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!spdcc!ima!cfisun!eric
From: eric@cfi.COM (eric)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Questions about "Free Software Foundation" (long)
Message-ID: <614@venus.UUCP>
Date: 9 Oct 89 18:59:59 GMT
References: <6602@thor.acc.stolaf.edu> <110004@gore.com> <2247@munnari.oz.au> <6702@thor.acc.stolaf.edu> <1989Oct2.151317.3789@odi.com>
Reply-To: eric@venus.UUCP (Eric Read -CFI-)
Distribution: na
Organization: Consumer Financial Institute, Waltham, Mass.
Lines: 27

In article <1989Oct2.151317.3789@odi.com> benson@odi.com (Benson I. Margulies) writes:
>This conversation should serve as a warning to potential FSF software
>users. Its quite typical. The FSF hangs a legal bowl of sphagetti off

Ambiguity.  Fear, uncertainty, doubt.  Frustration.  It is true that
it doesn't help to argue about this - the existence of so much argument
demonstrates the problem.

Can any of us think of a more "comforting" copyleft?  As a new legal
concept, it is bound to take more than a couple of iterations
(not to mention some actual case law) before any normal lawyer will let
it pass.  What can we suggest to improve the situation?  Are there any
analogous legal scenarios that can be invoked (precedent is everything
in the law)?

Or are for-profit activities forever constrained from working with FSF
software by the need to control risks and exposure?  Certainly the FSF
is losing a lot of their potential effectiveness as a result of our
uncertainty - do they care?

Well, a lot of questions from someone going on vacation tomorrow. :-)

-- 
  Eric Read                     ` | '       harvard!cfisun!eric
  Price Waterhouse / CFI        --*--       (617) 899-6500
  51 Sawyer Rd.                 ' | `       WUTFOTYATEOTW
  Waltham, MA  02154