Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!rutgers!ames!ptsfa!ihnp4!inuxc!iuvax!bsu-cs!dhesi
From: dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: COPYRIGHT NOTICES (on program sources, of course)
Message-ID: <1065@bsu-cs.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 29-Aug-87 13:23:16 EDT
Article-I.D.: bsu-cs.1065
Posted: Sat Aug 29 13:23:16 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 30-Aug-87 09:25:55 EDT
References: <6236@brl-smoke.ARPA> <25095@sun.uucp> <12133@bu-cs.BU.EDU> <2267@xanth.UUCP> <414@ralmar.UUCP>
Reply-To: dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi)
Organization: CS Dept, Ball St U, Muncie, Indiana
Lines: 21
Summary: Informal statements are not legally binding

Somebody said:
     I gave a copy of the "COPYING" file to our lawyer, who studied it
     in some detail and then pronounced that if we included it, it
     would require us to give away the source to ALL of Uniplus+.

ralph@ralmar.UUCP (Ralph Barker) writes:
     In describing his "Copyleft" at a recent...meeting, Richard
     Stallman seemed to indicate that the "spreading" effect of the GNU
     "Copyleft" would apply to software of which GNU Emacs was made an
     integral part by the distributor, but NOT to programs which "a
     reasonable" person would deem to be a separate, functional work.

What Stallman said might help you understand his intentions, but it has
no effect on what a court of law interprets the Gnu License to mean.

There is seldom any point in asking somebody to verbally explain what
he means by a contract he offers you.  Ask for any clarification to be
put in writing and made a part of the contract.  If it isn't part
of the contract, it's irrelevant.
-- 
Rahul Dhesi         UUCP:  {ihnp4,seismo}!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!dhesi