[License-discuss] License compatibility - reg

[Matthew Flaschen]

On 06/26/2013 03:48 PM, Rick Moen wrote:
> For a given copyrighted property or set of properties, a court is going
> to be looking to determine the licensors' actions (what they have
> permitted and subject to what conditions), and be primarily guided in
> the case of a written licence by the licence text, and to some degree
> possibly by other indicators such as licensors' actions and statements.

I agree the license text is obviously paramount, and ideally it's not
ambiguous.

> If I read your implication correctly, you are saying that the licence
> drafter's views, external to the licence text, are relevant to
> determining what the licensors have decreed in choosing that licence.
> It seems to me that this claim falls through a large logic gap.
> (Also, it's at odds with jurisprudence.)

Possibly, if the court decides the license is ambiguous.  They might
look to the preamble, as well as the licensor's statements (as you said,
the licensor is often not the license drafter).

But I think it's reasonable to think they may consider the license
drafter's statements as well.  There's reason to think the licensor of a
work may well have adopted the license drafter's interpretation, unless
they say otherwise.  If the licensor specifically says they disagree
with the license drafter, that's another matter.

So I think a court may decide someone using the GPL adopts the FSF's
interpretation of an ambiguous part, unless that person says up front
they reject the FSF's interpretation.

> I'm not sure by what measure what you say is 'conservative', but the 
> bigger problem is that it doesn't appear to pass the test of relevance.
> (My view, yours for a small fee and waiver of reverse-engineering rights.)

If you're not certain how the license will be interpreted in court, I
think it's conservative (safer) not to do things the license drafter
interprets as forbidden.

Matt Flaschen