To: gopher@complete.org
Subject: [gopher] Re: Heads up
References: <873d1go1pb.fsf@complete.org>
	<20020108215303.A10851@mothra.dyndns.org>
	<E16ODw3-0000Lo-00@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk>
	<87pu4jmxzp.fsf@complete.org>
	<E16OQ2o-0000Wp-00@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk>
From: John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org>
Date: 09 Jan 2002 16:56:49 -0500
In-Reply-To: <E16OQ2o-0000Wp-00@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk>
Message-ID: <87pu4jtcgu.fsf@complete.org>
Lines: 25
User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Common Lisp)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: gopher-bounce@complete.org
Errors-to: gopher-bounce@complete.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: gopher@complete.org


MJ Ray <markj@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk> writes:

> > > been one.  If there has, notify the authors who say otherwise.
> > It's been GPL'd.
> > ftp://boombox.micro.umn.edu/pub/gopher/gopher-software-licensing-policy.new
> 
> That covers the implementation, but doesn't cover the possibility of the
> concept of Gopher being put under something which requires licence payments
> (eg "Intellectual Property" laws in its home country).  Indeed, such a

Well, I think it does.  In the case of UMN gopher, the GPL guarantees
that we can do what we want with it as long as it remains GPL'd.

For gopher technology in general, I think you are speaking of
patents.  As far as I know, UMN never owned any patents on the
technology.  I really doubt that such could be obtained or enforced
today.

> first art and donated it to the world.  Some claim that the resultant fear
> of UMN licence payment demands are part of the reason for Gopher's slump.
> 

Quite true no doubt.  However that license is irrelevant now.

-- John