<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
On 07/28/2010 10:44 AM, Raul Suarez wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:946555.44357.qm@web30907.mail.mud.yahoo.com"
type="cite">
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td
style="font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-size: inherit; line-height: inherit; font-size-adjust: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; -x-system-font: none;"
valign="top">
<p>I'm sure we've all heard the difference between "the letter
of the law" and "the spirit of the law"</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>> [GPL has been ]untested in a court of law.<br>
</p>
<p>If and when the GPL gets tested in court then "the letter of
the law" will be tested.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</blockquote>
<br>
Well, there is a need to clarify. The GPL has been tested in court in
regard of being a valid license in generality. It is not possible to
claim the GPL in itself is unlawful and she be automatically void (as
i.e tried to SCO claim).<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:946555.44357.qm@web30907.mail.mud.yahoo.com"
type="cite">
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td
style="font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-size: inherit; line-height: inherit; font-size-adjust: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; -x-system-font: none;"
valign="top">
<p>> ... the FSF interpretation is, in some cases,
ideologically driven, and overly broad in certain cases.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Until that court test happens, then the FSF interpretation
embodies "the spirit of the law" as it was them that created the GPL.</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</blockquote>
<br>
The FSF's interpretation is like any other interpretation. The only
thing the can additionally contribute is their intention since they
have created it. However, they have no more authority in regard of
interpreting the interrelationship between the GPL and statutory/common
law as any other person trained in law.<br>
<br>
Just look at Apple's interpretation of their license making it illegal
to "jailbreak" their devices. The Library of Congress has clearly
stated this not to be illegal (at least under copyright legislation, in
particular the DCMA and its DRM provisions).<br>
<br>
- Ralph<br>
</body>
</html>