Xref: utzoo alt.religion.computers:1350 gnu.misc.discuss:732 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!bu.edu!bu-cs!spdcc!snorkelwacker!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ukma!sean From: sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) Newsgroups: alt.religion.computers,gnu.misc.discuss Subject: Re: Disinfecting the GNU Public Virus...er...License Message-ID: <13707@s.ms.uky.edu> Date: 17 Jan 90 00:28:25 GMT References: <4&VSZ:@splut.conmicro.com> Organization: The Leaning Tower of Patterson Office @ The Univ. of KY Lines: 29 In article <4&VSZ:@splut.conmicro.com> jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes: | Ignorance of the law is no excuse, so the user of the code is still | covered by the terms of the GNU Public License. Presto! Without knowing | it, he's just obligated himself to giving away the source code to | WhizzoCalc, and prevented himself from keeping others from giving it | away, forever. Actually that's not the way the law handles such cases. It is only mere speculation on my part. I say that most likely, the law would uphold Stallman's copyright, but possibly not his terms. In the case of a dispute, a ruling in Stallman's favor would probably result in a simple cease and desist order. I doubt that a damages suit would be allowed, and it's very questionable whether monies earned would have to be repayed. I'm almost certain that the violator would not be required to put their software under Stallman's terms. Stallman can't disarm the copyright laws with a virus-like GPL. The best he will get is to make them stop what they are doing, and possible damages. Sean -- *** Sean Casey sean@ms.uky.edu, sean@ukma.bitnet, ukma!sean *** Copyright 1989 by Sean Casey. Only non-profit redistribution permitted. *** "Gotta warn ya, if you're not a RUSH fan, well, what's *wrong* with you?" *** -DJ during WKQQs Four HOURS of Rush special.