FSF information (was : Re: Plea for a reasonable RHASv3 license option)

On Tue, 2003-09-02 at 13:09, Féliciano Matias wrote:
> Le mar 02/09/2003 à 05:45, Tom "spot" Callaway a écrit :
> > 
> > OK. I'm not a lawyer. I don't speak as the voice of Red Hat in these
> > matters.
> 
> I know. You already state this.
> 
> >  Please refrain from drawing your own interpretations and
> > claiming they came from me. If you have legal questions about RHEL's
> > licensing, please send them to [email protected]
> 
> Already done and state somewhere here.
> 
> >  No, I don't think it is
> > reasonable to expect a Red Hat lawyer to post on this thread. Red Hat's
> > lawyers are quite busy these days, and even if they weren't, they don't
> > usually lurk on technical beta lists.
> > 
> > If something in Red Hat's licensing bothers you, send [email protected]
> > an email with your concerns.
> 
> This is why I send a mail to [email protected] yesterday, as you ask me
> to do.
> Since RedHat's lawyers are busy, i wait their reply until the next week.
> After which i ask the FSF.

Here we are.

No reply from [email protected] . Perhaps I am faulty since my English is
really poor.

Anyway, i push this issue to the FSF France (in French) :
http://mail.gnu.org/archive/html/fsfe-france/2003-09/msg00090.html

It seems the FSF haven't yet study the RHEL License. Loic Dachary reply
to me that FSF US will study this issue within coming weeks :
http://mail.gnu.org/archive/html/fsfe-france/2003-09/msg00114.html

We will stay in touch and i make sure [email protected] is aware about
any issue with RHEL license found by the FSF.

Obviously, RedHat is welcome to take part to the discussion.

Regards,
-- 
Féliciano Matias <[email protected]>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQA/Y+kXAlHlXNHHbFMRAkfbAJ9IdrP71Oic9iWA6WmFgrryMKpqJwCfeMqx
wcP1XZrvhUqzPIRSjrx5wAc=
=tyAo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----