> -----Original Message-----
> From: piclist-bounces@mit.edu On Behalf Of Alan B. Pearce
> Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 8:05 AM
>
> >The GPL license is not a problem. Like *any* license it is a solution
> >to a problem, namely to that of unapproved theft (or 'lifting') of code
> >from the public domain towards proprietary applications which are then
> >sold for a lot of money by pigopolist companies.
>
> See my previous post on why this attitude may not hold water when
> tested in court.
>
> >That is how and why the GPL was created, and that is the purpose it
> >serves best. Other licenses serve other purposes, such as ensuring
> >a revenue stream for a company in the face of copycat competition.
> >The GPL is not that type of license (no version thereof).
>
> But as the court case shows, it doesn't stop a commercial
> organisation from claiming that the copyright is null and void, and then
using the
> information.

The license that is the subject of the court case is not the GPL, it is the
Artistic License. The project changed its license to the GPL some time this
past summer to hopefully avoid this problem with future releases.

Paul

>
> If you want to help fund the defendant to disprove this, you can provide
> funds through Paypal at
> http://jmri.sf.net/ and click on the 'support this project' icon in the
> dispute section. Further info on the dispute is in the link just
> beside the
> icon.
>

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist