Re: [Gnu-arch-users] contributors' licensing conditions

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

>>>>> "James" == James Blackwell <address@hidden> writes:

    James> The intended meaning

I understand the intent.  Have you ever introduced a bug into a
program?  Did the program do what you intended it to?  Law works the
same way.  Cf. Sun vs. Microsoft in re Java.

    James> This has nothing to do with system management or
    James> authentication! Promise!

You can't.  Nobody can make such a promise, not even the Chief Justice
of the Supreme Court of the United States.  In the U.S., the courts
will decide what the language means.  They will, as always, give
primary weight to the author(s) of the contract, but they will also
give some weight to the opinions of other users, especially in cases
unforeseen by the authors.

    >> it is _way_ premature to consider using this refugee from
    >> _Fantasy & Science Fiction_ for any free software.[3]

Unfortunately, I must retract this, since the FSF is clearly hellbent
on implementing GPLv3 GNU-wide by March of next year.  That's the most
important thing for Arch; since Arch is partly (mostly, wholly?)
FSF-owned and wants to be a GNU project, there's no real choice.

    James> You can help fixi t up by hitting the comments page and
    James> selecting the parts that you think have problems and
    James> clearly explaining what the problems are.

Maybe in 6-8 months.  Since it doesn't matter to Arch, I'm not going
to worry about it again until it we're getting close to D-Day for XEmacs.

-- 
School of Systems and Information Engineering http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp
University of Tsukuba                    Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
               Ask not how you can "do" free software business;
              ask what your business can "do for" free software.