[License-discuss] License compatibility - reg

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Ben Tilly (btilly at gmail.com):

> This may be true, but there are many cases where someone who in some
> way represents the drafter of a boilerplate legal vehicle filed an
> amicus brief that was given due weight by a judge.

On what question, though?  That matters, nei?

Upthread, Matthew states his view (and I'm trying in good faith here to
paraphrase; my apologies in advance if I err) that it's reasonable to
consider the licence drafter's views on the question of what the
licensor agreed to and subject to what conditions.

> The drafter does this because it is in their interest to get
> precedents saying that the legal vehicle actually means what they
> intended it to mean.  The judge can think this matters because it
> sheds light on what the participants may have thought they were
> agreeing to.

Like Matthew, you assert that this happens (you say 'may'), but you
cannot point to it occurring.  (See below.)  According to my
understanding of the basics in this area, it would be improbable
because, as mentioned, the drafter is just not (in the general case) a
party to the legal action in any way -- nor evan a qualified expert
witness on the question under discussion (what the licensor intended).  

Because the drafter couldn't possibly be.  You see.  Or maybe not.  I've
mentioned this datum a few times because, it seems to me, it should be
dispositive.  Maybe I'm hallucinating; maybe you and Matthew are.  I'm
glad to agree to disagree.  {hint}

> For example I point to the efforts of Allison Randal of The Perl
> Foundation in the case Jacobsen v. Katzer in litigation regarding the
> Artistic License.

I talked to Ms. Randal (very briefly) about that case at the time.  My
impression was that the judge did not consult her on the nature of what
Jacobsen had decreed in his licensing, but rather on other matters
entirely.

> In the example that I pointed to, the judges (multiple, this was an
> appeals court) came to the decision that Allison Randal supported,
> using lines of reasoning that she also supported.

Um, that's a heck of a handwave.  You have just talked all around the
actual point of contention:  Was Randal consulted to help the judge
determine the nature and purport of Jacobsen's licensing conditions? 
No, she was not.

(By the way, I try very strenously to neither need to sue my lawyers,
nor wish to.  Fortunately, they're lovely people and remain on my
Christmas list.  Well, my metaphorical one, anyway.)

-- 
Cheers,                    Foursquare is for people who wish they were Sims.
Rick Moen                                                    -- Kelly Oxford
rick at linuxmafia.com
McQ! (4x80)