From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD, FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,d0f6c37e3c1b712a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: "Hyman Rosen" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: AdaCore ... the Next SCO? Date: 17 Jul 2006 15:23:47 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: <1153175027.628030.98470@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> References: <1151405920.523542.137920@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> <1151434144.2179.36.camel@localhost> <1151965334.709372.227600@a14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <3Ryqg.368$Rk2.140@trndny04> <1152882713.304794.267470@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <34r70ox8kc.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de> <1153167224.590828.32290@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.253.248.208 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1153175032 3661 127.0.0.1 (17 Jul 2006 22:23:52 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 22:23:52 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: G2/0.2 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.0.4) Gecko/20060508 Firefox/1.5.0.4,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=204.253.248.208; posting-account=lJDDWg0AAACmMd7wLM4osx8JUCDw_C_j Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:5744 Date: 2006-07-17T15:23:47-07:00 List-Id: Michael Bode wrote: > This, as I have learned here, has no legal force. > You always have to ask the author. You have heard this claimed here. I would suggest that you do not "learn" it. Should things ever come to enforcement actions, a judge is going to look very dubiously at anyone claiming that a plain statement of license embedded in a file does not apply. Go have a look over at Groklaw and their discussion of "squishy law". . The law is not a computer program which is rigidly executed by lawyers and judges. Any plaintiff will be asked why, if he did not want files to be distributed in accordance with the license in the header, he allowed that license to remain there. He will be asked this in the context of the FSF's instructions on how to apply the GPL, , which say to put the license and copyright information into the source file headers. The judge at best will think that the plaintiff was too lazy to properly establish his rights and at worst that he was deliberately trying to entrap the recipients of the software. And the plaintiff will have his case summarily dismissed.