Put it in laymen's terms

[Seth David Schoen]

bruce at perens.com writes:

> From: Ken Arromdee <arromdee at rahul.net>
> > It doesn't make sense that one person can reinterpret what a phrase in
> > someone else's license means.
> 
> You're forgetting that Linus is copyright holder for a significant portion
> of the code.

I think Ken Arromdee is aware of that much. :-)

> His note can be taken as a declaration that he will not
> prosecute for a specific kind of use. He has the right to make up that
> list for software that he owns,

Right...

> and other kernel developers will follow
> his lead. He can interpret all he wants, and the other developers will
> follow his lead in that, too.

... and here we pass from law into informed speculation.

Kernel developers up to this point have worked on the kernel for largely
personal reasons, and generally liked what Linus was doing.  Because of the
success of free software, we are entering a period in which a substantial
number of people will be paid by big companies to work on free software --
and those big companies' lawyers may begin to worry themselves about the fine
points of licensing.

If there is an ambiguity or misunderstanding about the interpretation of the
license of an important free software project, it needs to be worked out.
It's no longer reasonable to rely entirely on the goodwill of the
developers.

-- 
                    Seth David Schoen <schoen at loyalty.org>
      They said look at the light we're giving you,  /  And the darkness
      that we're saving you from.   -- Dar Williams, "The Great Unknown"
  http://ishmael.geecs.org/~sigma/  (personal)  http://www.loyalty.org/  (CAF)