On Wed, 19 May 2004 16:43:35 +0100, Rui Miguel Seabra > In my view, YES, YES, YES, YES and YES. > > So I think that some thought leading to positive conclusions should be > applied before knee-jerk reactions. I firmly agree...some informed thought is needed. Some informed thought from people who practice law. > > YES or NO ? > > Rui > > ps: in my view, YES. Unfortunately...or fortunately...neither my or your opinion should be considered informed legal counsel. I'll say it again, but a bit more explicitly. Once threads about licensing from people who are not lawyers get to this point, they are pretty much worthless, navel gazing, pontificating ianal opinion diatribes. You and I could argue for an eterinity about where the legal line is and whether Red Hat has crossed it with this eula. Whether you and I agree on this...at the end of the day...doesn't matter. Whether your opinion is more popular...doesn't matter either really. We aren't informed legal counsel. Pretending that we are is just wasting breath and bandwidth. In an effort to avoid a simple and pointless opinion debate between non-lawyers, I have cited an outside opinion reference about an actual court case that deals with gpl and trademark restrictions. I fully submit that becuase it is also an opinion piece, it holds far less value than actual informed legal counsel. But I will also submit that any opinion about what the already decided legal case involving the mysql court case says about how trademark and the gpl interact, is far more educational than any personal opinions you or I can state and debate here. Whether the eula that comes with Fedora violates the gpl, is an issue important enough for informed legal counsel to look at. You and I are not that legal counsel. For us to debate facts of law, from an uninformed position, can do nothing but make the matter murkier than it already is. -jef"get a lawyer"spaleta
