On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 11:29 PM, Chad Perrin <per...@apotheon.com> wrote:
> In that, the only way the opinion of the license's author really seems to
> factor into things once the license has already been written is as a
> contribution to the common understanding of the license.  For that
> purpose, however, it is only one of many potential inputs to the common
> understanding of the license.

Yes. However, when referring to the GPL FAQ, I actually believe it
represents the common understanding of a rather large portion of the
FOSS community, not just the understanding of Stallman or perhaps
Moglen. (Granted, for many it is just that they accept whatever the
FSF says, for others it might be they don't want to argue with the
FSF, but even so, their acceptance then contributes to the common
understanding.) Hence I find it a useful though not legally
authoritative document.

The real point I was trying to make however is that the GPL FAQ seems
to function well as a safe baseline for what is very likely allowed.
Most people who disagree with the FSF interpretation (such as Rosen in
this thread) usually believe a more permissible interpretation of
copyright law is correct. Hence, it seems while Rosen writes that the
FSF position is wrong, in this particular case they both would agree
that 2 separately running programs (sharing no code) are not
derivative works of each other and hence.

> It's also important to take the (stated) intent of the work's author into
> consideration,

If the author(s) has(have) given such a statement, and if it is equal
to or more permissible than the common understanding of the GPL, then
that would of course be the most usable information to go with and the
rest of the discussion is unnecessary.

+358-40-8211286 skype: henrik.ingo irc: hingo

My LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=9522559
License-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to