On 14-10-20 07:29 AM, Thomas Charron wrote:
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 3:44 PM, thufir <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Google found a work-around to remove the GPL, in certain
circumstances, of certain types of code, if, and it's a big if,
they ultimately prevail. Since Google, or someone, will
eventually come along, copy all that declaring code, verbatim,
farm out the implementing code, and slap the ASL license on the
result, why use the GPL at all?
So, your basic argument is.. Don't use the GPL since people can see
your code....... ?
--
-- Thomas
There are three possible outcomes from the SCOTUS:
1.) The SSO of any computer program may be stolen.
2.) The SSO of some computer program may be stolen.
3.) The SSO of no computer program may be stolen.
As pointed out to me, Alsup writes: "...the particular elements
replicated by Google were free for all to use under the Copyright
Act..." to arrive at his conclusion that it does not hold that the SSO
of any computer program may be stolen. The appeals court replies,
effectively, that the reasoning Alsup applies to the case, were it
applied to other computer programs, would allow for the SSO to any
computer program to be stolen.
In theory, the appeals court is reading Alsup's decision correctly. As a
practical matter, however, only the SSO to some computer programs would
be green-lit for getting stolen: libre software. Only libre software
makes the code directly available for verbatim copying.
My basic argument is: consider the repercussions to these three
possibilities.
-Thufir
