Re: LYNX-DEV SSLynx

[Philip Webb]

980103 David Woolley wrote:
> As explained in my later article, you are not taking into account the GPL.
> Lynx is GPLed.  Any SSL Lynx would be a derived work & must also be GPLed.
> GPLed works cannot be non-commercial only.  Any Lynx containing RSA code
> would have to be issued under a clause in the GPL which permits countries
> to be excluded, however that would be imposing an additional condition
> on a derived work, which is not permitted.
-- snip -- 
> The GPL clause is there to deal with patents and the like.  There is
> an interesting question as the impact of export controls on the freedom
> to redistribute GPLed code; my suspicion is that this would be a political
> hot potato that the FSF would like to avoid taking a public position on.
-- snip -- 
> I think there are some important questions about the GPL here,
> and that SSL versions of Lynx are probably being distributed
> in breach of it at the moment.
 
some basic questions which don't seem to have been asked here before:

(1) GPL is a licence, which implies a legal system under which it works,
    which in turn implies a nation's legal code (or international law)
    -- under whose laws is GPL established?

(2) if GPL is a legal constraint, not an appeal to people's consciences,
    who is in fact in a position to enforce it?
    does FSF have staff & funds to pursue a lawsuit against infringement?
    how likely would it be that FSF would pursue a lawsuit
    against the kind of gray-area special-case infringement
    which may be involved in LynxSSL?

unless Lynx is copyright under international law
& FSF have the ability & the will to pursue enforcement in the courts,
i suggest that the whole question of LynxSSL status is moot.

-- 
========================,,============================================
SUPPORT     ___________//___,  Philip Webb : address@hidden
ELECTRIC   /] [] [] [] [] []|  Centre for Urban & Community Studies
TRANSIT    `-O----------O---'  University of Toronto