On 03/01/2012 11:57 PM, Chris Travers wrote:
Ok, so part of avoiding lawsuits is to avoid areas where folks think they can sue about.Not quite, because neophytes think they can sue about anything. Sometimes lawyers cooperate in this, because they think the victim will settle or otherwise change their behavior without ever getting near a court. So, it has to be an area where there is not such a bright line that litigation would immediately fail and that any competent attorney would know that.
As an example, the abortive attempt of Astrolabe to sue Olsen over the timezone database had the obvious flaw that it attempted to assert copyright law over facts like legislative changes to daylight savings time. When the defendant showed them a fully-written pleading for a Rule 11 sanction, Astrolabe withdrew. No gray area there.
Only because they have good counsel and have successfully enforced the license many times.So the FSF's statements are important here
In contrast, Linus Torvalds' various confusing and conflicting mailing list statements about what is OK and not OK under the GPL were not something you could rely on. I think he now knows not to make them.
I can tell you that if I ask two different lawyers with different ideological views regarding free software what the implications of mixing BSD and GPL3 files in the same project, I get two different answers.....The fact that there are courts is evidence that lawyers frequently disagree. However, you should resist the temptation to waste your time on the areas of contention. They are known and can be engineered around.
There are cases where no amount of isolation will protect you from having created a derivative work. For example, suppose I write a graphics driver which recognizes Doom's OpenGL calls, and transforms them in some interesting way.We have cases about just this that you can read. They are Goloob v. Nintendo, and Micro Star v. Formgen. But you are really far now from combining GPL and proprietary software, which doesn't present the problems of transforming visual output which is itself a creative work.
What I am saying is there's a difference between you saying "Linking is legally dubipus under the GPL" and me saying "As far as LedgerSMB is concerned, we interpret the GPL not to restrict linking and mere use of API's, but believe that inheritance may be run into trouble." At least given that I am more or less the de facto leader of the LedgerSMB project. The first is an attempt to describe the license in the abstract. The second is a representation on behalf of a project as to what license rights we believe we are granting. As I understand it, these are very different statements
Yes, but if Dieter wished to enforce his license in a way contrary to your sentiment, your statements would have little meaning because his contribution is independent of you and your policies and precedes your involvement. Even in the case of other developers who are concurrent with you, they are either independent copyright holders or share-holders in a collective work, and haven't ceded you the right to represent their legal interest. If they gave me, as an expert witness, the task of showing your statements to be naive and unreliable, it wouldn't be much of a problem.
Thanks
Bruce
<<attachment: bruce.vcf>>
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
