7 Aug
2009
7 Aug
'09
10:56 a.m.
On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 06:51:08AM -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
For emphasis, I just want to paste that sentence (and
the following
one) again for Raymond, with attribution:
Eben Moglen, attorney for the FSF: "The claim that a GPL violation
could lead to the forcing open of proprietary code that has wrongfully
included GPL'd components is simply wrong. There is no provision in
the Copyright Act to require distribution of infringing work on
altered terms. "
Which makes perfect sense. In a civilised society even
a convicted thief retains all the rights to his legally
acquired property. If any of it has to be seized, for
example to compensate his victims, that action can be
taken only by a court. Not by his victims or some self-
appointed vigilante.
Ciao,
--
FA
Io lo dico sempre: l'Italia รจ troppo stretta e lunga.