I think gigs meant it's not a ruling in the sense of something legally binding like a court ruling would be, it's not even really legal advice.
Anyway, the current amended policy seems much more reasonable and i'd think the FSF would agree. On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 9:33 PM, Robert Martin <robertl...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 4:16 PM, Gigs <gigstagg...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Ron Festa wrote: >>> Not really. If you're a user basically that means you have to stop using >>> that viewer if you want to continue access. If you are a developer it >>> means you have to remove the ability to connect to SL. Again as per the >>> FSF ruling on this, they're restricting the service not the software. >> >> It's not a "ruling". >> >> It's the personal opinion of a non-lawyer that works for the FSF. > > no i think that somebody with the title > "Licensing Compliance Engineer, Free Software Foundation" could be > said to speak for the FSF. > -- > Robert L Martin > _______________________________________________ > Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: > http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev > Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges > -- “Lanie, I’m going to print more printers. Lots more printers. One for everyone. That’s worth going to jail for. That’s worth anything.” - Printcrime by Cory Doctrow Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html _______________________________________________ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
