Inappropriate postings from non-lawyers
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004, Richard Schilling wrote: I post my response because so many times on this list people try to play armchair lawyer and pick apart a license. It's not appropriate Richard, Could you please point me to this list charter or guidelines? You seem to imply that only lawyers can discuss posted licenses on this list. If what you seem to imply is true, I personally would stop discussing others' licenses immediately! I am not a lawyer. I contribute from a license _user_ point of view. I hope that OSI wants to accommodate open source users at least as much as open source lawyers and, hence, would benefit from users point of view being represented. If there is no list charter or guidelines, or if they do not share your point of view, then please adjust your appropriateness criteria accordingly. You are, of course, welcome to create a moderated lawyers-only list and convince OSI to use that instead of or in addition to this list. Lawyers most likely write NASA licenses and that's something to respect. Whether something is worth respect is not determined by whether it was made by a lawyer, IMHO. YMMV. Alex. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Inappropriate postings from non-lawyers
On 2004.02.13 08:35 Alex Rousskov wrote: On Thu, 12 Feb 2004, Richard Schilling wrote: I post my response because so many times on this list people try to play armchair lawyer and pick apart a license. It's not appropriate Richard, Could you please point me to this list charter or guidelines? You seem to imply that only lawyers can discuss posted licenses on this list. If what you seem to imply is true, I personally would stop discussing others' licenses immediately! I am not a lawyer. I contribute from a license _user_ point of view. I hope that OSI wants to accommodate open source users at least as much as open source lawyers and, hence, would benefit from users point of view being represented. I simply expressed an opinion. One could assume that because I don't write the opensource.org charters. I'm simply laying out the judgement call that there's too much loose banter on this list. I would like to see the opensource.org criteria clarified on the web pages. It would help clear up some confusion. I suggested a few changes in an earlier post. I too, want to see opensource.org accomodate the general public . . . but it would be nice to see an effort by the list participants to keep the discussion related to legal licensing issues and not moral implications for the free world. Look, folks the entire purpose of a license of any kind is to have something to present to a judge in case something goes wrong, and to clarify what rights are transferred to the end user. The true test of a license (for open source work in a business) is what happens in court and in business negotiations. If us non-lawyers defer to lawyers and listen more we may have more lawyers providing constructive input. Obviously, people are arguing that the GPL is invalid and providing some detailed analysis. I hope opensource.org pays attention to that and gets self-critical about their criteria really quick. At present, they are endorsing licenses that don't mean anything in front of a judge. They're nice public statements and rhetoric, but not much else at times. Am I critical and judgemental? yes, I know. . . Will I start my own discussion list and take my opinions there? Sure, when I have time. Richard If there is no list charter or guidelines, or if they do not share your point of view, then please adjust your appropriateness criteria accordingly. You are, of course, welcome to create a moderated lawyers-only list and convince OSI to use that instead of or in addition to this list. Lawyers most likely write NASA licenses and that's something to respect. Whether something is worth respect is not determined by whether it was made by a lawyer, IMHO. YMMV. Alex. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Inappropriate postings from non-lawyers
Ian Lance Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The arguments that the GPL is invalid are totally bogus. I need to qualify that by saying that I'm referring to the arguments which have appeared recently on the license-discuss list. There are other theories that the GPL, while valid, does not have the reach which most people think it does. Those theories may some day be tested in court. Until and unless that happens, nobody can definitively state whether or not the GPL is legally binding. Ian -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Inappropriate postings from non-lawyers
Richard Schilling scripsit: Look, folks the entire purpose of a license of any kind is to have something to present to a judge in case something goes wrong, and to clarify what rights are transferred to the end user. The true test of a license (for open source work in a business) is what happens in court and in business negotiations. If you think that's the entire purpose of the GPL, you haven't read it. If us non-lawyers defer to lawyers and listen more we may have more lawyers providing constructive input. As a matter of observable fact, being a lawyer or a nonlawyer has nothing to do with the constructiveness of one's input to this list. Obviously, people are arguing that the GPL is invalid and providing some detailed analysis. I hope opensource.org pays attention to that and gets self-critical about their criteria really quick. At present, they are endorsing licenses that don't mean anything in front of a judge. You don't know that, and neither does anyone else. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan I am he that buries his friends alive and drowns them and draws them alive again from the water. I came from the end of a bag, but no bag went over me. I am the friend of bears and the guest of eagles. I am Ringwinner and Luckwearer; and I am Barrel-rider. --Bilbo to Smaug -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Inappropriate postings from non-lawyers
Look, folks the entire purpose of a license of any kind is to have something to present to a judge in case something goes wrong, and to clarify what rights are transferred to the end user. ... and since the user is often not a lawyer, those who write licenses should try to strike a balance between users needs and legal needs. For example, open source software with new 100 page legal license attached has fewer chances succeeding in real world, no matter how many lawyers are happy about that license. I see a partial value of this mailing list in educating submitters what their primary user audience wants. The true test of a license (for open source work in a business) is what happens in court and in business negotiations. IMO, that's not the only test. The success or failure of a license is often tied to success or failure of the software that uses it. Open Source license is much more than a piece of legal text for courts. It has the power to attract or scare large number of users. If the submitter is serious about open source (and not just doing marketing), they should try to be friendly to as many open source users as possible, given other important factors. NASA license, for example, is not user-friendly at all, IMO. I am sure US Goverment has the resources to come up with a better license (while preserving the necessary level of protection). Hopefully, the discussion on this list will help them to do that. If us non-lawyers defer to lawyers and listen more we may have more lawyers providing constructive input. There needs to be a balance, IMO. Perhaps OSI should moderate this list. Alex. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
