Testing the GPL (from Wall Street Journal)

> Internal or personal use?

Are you or anyone on this list my customer, employer, employee or in any
professional sense affiliated with me?

My affiliation with this list is entirely eduational and related to an indivual
hobby.

I receive a print copy of the Journal, you are welcome to come over and read it
in print, yes?

OK, I don't know how long I can remain serious about this, I am not terribly
serious about it as it is. I guess I am just trying to figure out what "fair
use" means. If the list were not archived (the fact that the archive is broken
at the moment aside) this would have just gone to a list of friends and not
broadcast or really reporduced beyond what I could have done in person.

Actually my personal view, not that anyone cares, is that if it can be tatooed
on my butt (sorry about the image) it can't be protected. That is just a fact
of digital nature. Anyone relying on protecting any kind of content for their
revenue had better accept that fact. They can either generate their revenue in
a manner that does not rely on protecting the content (they can still of course
provide the content), or do what they can to minimize their losses and accept
that some percent of their content will be "stolen".

(NOTE: Stolen isn't in quote because I think everyone has some god given right
to content, just some people's definition of stolen is a bit excessive "Any time
you skip a commercial or watch the button you're actually stealing the
programming." -- Jamie Kellner, Chairman and CEO of Turner Broadcasting)

> I originally just brought this up because I find it ironic especially
> since the discussion is about licensing of software and SCO's claims ...

Yes, I don't know why I am going to this extent ... probably because your
comment prompted me to read the Terms for what I had posted.

Austin