Am Wed, 19 Aug 2015 21:13:01 -0400 schrieb Rich Freeman <[email protected]>:
> So, who cares what they think? They don't get to write the law. When
> Linus says stuff that is smart, I'll admire him for it. When he says
> stuff that is dumb, I'm not afraid to say that the emperor has no
> clothes.
What do you think of the input the lawyers he went to gave him [0]:
"Linus, however, believes that GPL-only exports are significant.
I've talked to a lawyer or two, and (a) there's an absolutely _huge_
difference and (b) they liked it.
The fact is, the law isn't a blind and mindless computer that takes what
you say literally. Intent matters a LOT. And using the xxx_GPL() version to
show that it's an internal interface is very meaningful indeed.
One of the lawyers said that it was a much better approach than trying to
make the license explain all the details - codifying the intention in the
code itself is not only more flexible, but a lot less likely to be
misunderstood."
In the rest of the email [1] he writes:
"I think both them said that anybody who were to change a xyz_GPL to the
non-GPL one in order to use it with a non-GPL module would almost
immediately fall under the "willful infringement" thing, and that it would
make it MUCH easier to get triple damages and/or injunctions, since they
clearly knew about it.
I suspect programmers make horrible lawyers. They nitpick on details that
sane humans don't. I think programmers often end up forgetting about the
fact that human interactions don't work that way. Common sense makes a lot
of difference, and DWIM is not just possible, but it's the only thing that
matters.
Linus"
[0] https://lwn.net/Articles/154602/
[1] https://lwn.net/Articles/154603/
--
Marc Joliet
--
"People who think they know everything really annoy those of us who know we
don't" - Bjarne Stroustrup
pgpwUTjabqHlB.pgp
Description: Digitale Signatur von OpenPGP
