Xref: utzoo gnu.misc.discuss:516 alt.religion.computers:1099
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uunet!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!mit-eddie!bbn!bbn.com!rsalz
From: rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,alt.religion.computers
Subject: Re: Because you think I misrepresent RMS, it's OK to misrepresent me?
Message-ID: <2212@prune.bbn.com>
Date: 14 Dec 89 19:55:17 GMT
References: <2558@flatline.UUCP> <4639@sugar.hackercorp.com> <25770F75.3EA@rpi.edu> <1913@texsun.Central.Sun.COM> <1989Dec7.075641.13191@news.acc.Virginia.EDU> <4754@sugar.hackercorp.com> <3084@cello.UUCP> <.SP8B@splut.conmicro.com>
Organization: BBN Systems and Technologies Corporation
Lines: 19

In <.SP8B@splut.conmicro.com> jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes:
>I agree that the person who posted GNU getopt without a copy of the GPV
>screwed up; still, that doesn't mean that those who use the code should
>be penalized.

The truism "ignorance of the law is no excuse" has special meaning when
copyright is involved.  Find a lawyer to explain it.  I think there were
also some articles in UnixReview about it.

Basically, the rule is that even if you get something without the copyright
THE COURTS have said that you are liable.  (You'd presumably seek civil
action against the person to cover your tail.)

I emphasized the courts, above, because I wish to point out that this is
not FSF's doing; it is the work of the US Legal System.
	/r$
-- 
Please send comp.sources.unix-related mail to rsalz@uunet.uu.net.
Use a domain-based address or give alternate paths, or you may lose out.