Xref: utzoo alt.religion.computers:1355 gnu.misc.discuss:733
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!yale!cmcl2!stealth.acf.nyu.edu!brnstnd
From: brnstnd@stealth.acf.nyu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.religion.computers,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Disinfecting the GNU Public Virus...er...License
Message-ID: <20859@stealth.acf.nyu.edu>
Date: 17 Jan 90 08:41:26 GMT
References: <4&VSZ:@splut.conmicro.com> <NELSON.90Jan16164120@image.clarkson.edu> <13707@s.ms.uky.edu>
Reply-To: brnstnd@stealth.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein)
Distribution: usa
Organization: IR
Lines: 18

In article <13707@s.ms.uky.edu> sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) writes:
> 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.

Correct. Ignorance of the law is never an excuse, but ignorance of the
situation can be. That's why everybody should know and apply the legal
principle of Making It Clear To The Other Guy. Even if the court ruled
that the GPL were valid, the user would not be bound by the terms of the
license, since he was never informed of them. (That's another reason that
limited copyrights are so superior to licenses: someone who isn't informed
of the limitations is still bound by the copyright.)

---Dan