Python Cannot be Killed

[Ben Finney]

On Wed, 18 Jun 2003 13:57:36 +1000, Delaney, Timothy C (Timothy) wrote:
> There is a growing view (not necessarily correct - IANAL) that the GPL
> is actually an explicit waiver of copyright due to the requirement to
> distribute the source when the binary is distributed.

Your use of the word "explicit waiver of copyright" is provably false,
since "explicit" means "clearly stated; plain in language", and there is
no language in the GPL that clearly states a waiver of copyright.

You may mean "implicit", which is the exact opposite ("fairly to be
understood, though not expressed in words"), but there has been no
ruling on the GPL to date (because anyone found to be in breach of its
terms has decided not to challenge it in court), so we can't know
anything about what a court may find implicit in the license.

So we are left with a putative "growing view", which has only the status
of rumour; and you don't state whether it is a growing view among
copyright lawyers, or among casual observers, or even how many people
hold this view.

Thanks for the FUD, but no thanks.

-- 
 \         "Giving every man a vote has no more made men wise and free |
  `\       than Christianity has made them good."  -- Henry L. Mencken |
_o__)                                                                  |
http://bignose.squidly.org/ 9CFE12B0 791A4267 887F520C B7AC2E51 BD41714B