<div>On 7/10/07, Mark Harrison <<a href="mailto:Mark@yourpropertyexpert.com">Mark@yourpropertyexpert.com</a>> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> Mac wrote: > As I understand it, GPLv3 is not a contract;  it's a waiver of copyright > that passes to those who also waive copyright.  This is what's so clever > about it - it just doesn't work like a contract or licence.  I think > this is why patent/copyright lawyers have such trouble with it:  it's > anti-matter! > > Best wishes > > Mac Mac, Thanks for that. It's hard to see, however, how any legal document written on 1st July could retrospectively apply to a contract signed on the 30th June unless the contract made specific provision for itself to be modified. Not even the government can (normally) pass laws that apply retrospectively. Oh, and I have (finally) blogged about why I'm not a member of the FSF - you are strongly encouraged to visit <a href="http://planet.ubuntu-uk.org/">http://planet.ubuntu-uk.org/</a> for all your Ubuntu-UK related needs :-) My blog is one of many syndicated there. M. -- <a href="mailto:ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com">ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com</a> <a href="https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk">https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk </a> <a href="https://wiki.kubuntu.org/UKTeam/">https://wiki.kubuntu.org/UKTeam/</a> </blockquote></div> Without disscussion I think the GPL 3 is a very good license which protects Free Software and overall should strengthen it. Why should a company be able to take code use it, but deny the users to reuse it with modifications, they have brought the product so why should they be restricted? With this attitude TiVo is just using the kernel not actually contributing in anyway at all. My 2 pennies worth... -- " linux: because a PC is a terrible thing to waste"