Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > <http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1000000121,39461786,00.htm> > > Sun has released more Java software (the lightweight UI toolkit) > under the GPLv2, with the classpath exception. It should be > abundantly clear at this point that industry regards the GPL and > other such licenses to be valid as written, whether or not the > law would actually hold that way should they be disputed.
That's actually not really a good point. It is clear that releasing under the GPL seems compatible with Sun's goals. But it is not at all clear what legal expections Sun has from the GPL to make the licensing compatible with Sun's goals. A combination of effectively public domain plus a working "stay away" bluff and goodwill hunting could still be Sun's aim. On the other hand, a bluff that never gets called in spite of the other players having deep pockets is apparently as good as the real thing. Most non-bluffs get called more often. > If it should turn out that the courts do not uphold the validity > of these licenses (which, given the JMRI case, appears unlikely), > then I believe you could shortly thereafter expect congress to > change copyright law to make them valid. After all, agencies of > the U.S. government itself distribute software under the GPL: > <http://www.nsa.gov/selinux/info/license.cfm> You can't retroactively change the effects of laws, that would be acting against bad faith ("good faith" seems an inappropriate term regarding reliance on being able to ignore licensing conditions). -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
