conducting a sane and efficient GPLv3, LGPLv3 Review

dtemeles at dtemeles at
Wed Aug 1 13:04:35 UTC 2007

FWIW, I and many of my colleagues in IP law think Rosen is incorrect  
on a number of key points.  However, given that the language of the  
GPL is clear as mud, there is plenty of room for reasonable minds to  
differ on how it should/will be applied to any given set of facts.  In  
the end. the only opinion that will matter in any given case is that  
of the judge who hears the case (or the appeal).

What Quoting John Cowan <cowan at>:

> Alexander Terekhov scripsit:
>> Is there any followup to this exciting development of Rosen-vs-GNU
>> wisdom? :-)
> Just that the disagreement between Larry and most other people is of
> long standing and unlikely to go away, but has hitherto been of little
> practical effect.  My own view (IANAL), is that Larry is probably right
> on the letter of the law, but that community practice counts for a lot
> too, even in court (judges have been known to look to the way the
> relevant community traditionally interpreted standard contracts, e.g.).
> It may or may not be legal to create combined works with GPLed and
> proprietary parts, but it is definitely tacky and you shouldn't do it.
> --
> John Cowan  cowan at
> The competent programmer is fully aware of the strictly limited size  
>  of his own
> skull; therefore he approaches the programming task in full   
> humility, and among
> other things he avoids clever tricks like the plague.  --Edsger Dijkstra

More information about the License-discuss mailing list