On 06/21/2011 10:21 AM, Otavio Salvador wrote: > On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 11:08, Gerry Reno <gr...@verizon.net> wrote: > >> On 06/21/2011 09:56 AM, Otavio Salvador wrote: >> >>> I have some friends that are from GNU and it does matter if the code >>> has been changed using a previous code as reference. It is a difficult >>> stuff to be discussed in jury but it can happen. >>> >>> The only safe way to avoid this is to reconstruct the code without >>> this previous version as base. It doesn't seems as a valid option for >>> FreeRDP case since we have based the code on a fork from RDesktop >>> (like it or not) and thus most of basis (not the new code) is >>> derivated work. >>> >>> It seems that the only way to solve this is Cendio and their people >>> allowing us to change license. Start from scratch seems stupid for me. >>> >>> >>> >> Absolutely not true. >> > The point is that you need to PROVE that your code is not based on the > previous code from the author A who did not accept to change the > license terms of his code. > > I hope am I wrong but I think you're sub-estimating the possible > implications of it. Cendio can say our code is derivated from their > code and we need to PROVE it is not. Not the opposite. >
No, the burden of proof is on the entity that is claiming there was a license violation. Not the other way round. And the courts are fairly lenient with new codebases. You can look at any number of examples. SCO's failed lawsuit against Linux for example. Regards, Gerry ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ EditLive Enterprise is the world's most technically advanced content authoring tool. Experience the power of Track Changes, Inline Image Editing and ensure content is compliant with Accessibility Checking. http://p.sf.net/sfu/ephox-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Freerdp-devel mailing list Freerdp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freerdp-devel
