Subject: Re: Successful FSBs
From: Lynn Winebarger <owinebar@free-expression.org>
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 20:35:56 -0500

On Friday 27 September 2002 18:27, Tim O'Reilly wrote:
> But that's not the coercion I'm talking about.  RMS has on more than one
> occasion (alas, I don't have the references) given tacit or explicit
> approval to situations in which people have essentially tricked an employer
> who didn't understand the terms into releasing under the GPL, or seemed to
> say it was OK if people were caught by the GPL because they didn't
> understand it.
   Before you make this kind of statement about someone in public, you
should have references.  Or abstain from making it.
   For the second situation, it is the person re-using the code's responsibility
to understand the terms[1].  There is plenty of information available about the GPL.
If someone can't be bothered to do some due diligence, it's hardly RMS's or the 
FSF's fault or problem.

Lynn
[1]  I'm assuming (since you say "caught") that you're referring to people putting
GPL'ed code into their own software.  I don't know of any other situation in which
they could be described as "caught" by the GPL.