Re: AdaCore ... the Next SCO?

[michael bode <michael.bode@laserline.de>]

M E Leypold <development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVETHIS@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de> writes:

> Personally I do not think it is good to be fuzzy in these things. If
> the trust in current distribution practice is undermined, it'll not
> create freedom if I've to find an actual rights holder and get him
> speaking to me (which is even more difficult) every time I want to use
> an open source package.

And even if you find the actual rights holder (and you/he/someone can
prove he really is the actual rights holder) he might be believing in
the FSF interpretation and tell you to look into the headers, because
that's were he wrote the license. 

I imagine Linus Torvalds answering millions of requests if kernel
x.y.z *really* is GPL or maybe something else because license notices
in the sources "have no legal force". He will send you to hell.

So *if* one would believe the "no legal force" thing, the logical
consequence is to use commercial shrink-wrap EULA software and avoid
OSS at any cost.

One might wonder if some compiler vendor came to the exact same
conclusion.