<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
On 07/29/2010 12:36 PM, Raul Suarez wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:385466.8227.qm@web30908.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;"
valign="top">
<p>--- On <b>Thu, 7/29/10, Ralph Janke <i><a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:txwikinger@ubuntu.com"><txwikinger@ubuntu.com></a></i></b>
wrote:<br>
</p>
> The FSF's interpretation is like any other interpretation. The
only
thing the can additionally
<p>> contribute is their intention since they
have created it. However, they have no more</p>
<p>> authority in regard of
interpreting the interrelationship between the GPL and statutory/</p>
<p>>common
law as any other person trained in law.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>I think you are again confusing the spirit (Which is the
intention under which the license was written) with the letter, which
is the bottom part of your paragraph.</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</blockquote>
<br>
Correction:<br>
<br>
A license is a permission, not a law. The question is in what sense
such a permission *put* additional obligations on you. That part is
restricted by law.<br>
<br>
You could very well put out a license saying, "if you use this
software, you agree to give me all your possessions you have".<br>
<br>
However, the spirit of "law" says that such a condition would *not* be
unenforceable.<br>
<br>
- Ralph<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>