[License-discuss] Reverse Engineering and Open Source Licenses
thufir
hawat.thufir at gmail.com
Sat Mar 7 03:33:07 UTC 2015
On 2015-03-06 05:30 PM, lkcl . wrote:
>> >
>> >So, that's the point. You might write what you like about the GPL and
>> >reverse engineering, but the foundation behind the GPL has opened the door
>> >on this.
> no it has not. from previous experience, you have a habit of being
> unable to discern between correlation and causation, and have shown a
> tendency to not be able to follow logical chains of reasoning.
While I appreciate that you continue the insults, that wasn't my full
point above, as you should know, since we exchanged x number of e-mails
on the subject. Allow me to elaborate:
Generally, reverse engineering is expensive in dollars and time. Should
Google win this battle, the result will be to weaken the GPL. Had
Google been forced to resort to reverse engineering then Dalvik would've
either been under the GPL or under some license from Oracle. I would've
rather seen Dalvik GPL'ed.
The upshot being that, for any sufficiently large company, the GPL is
just a bump in the road and not a real impediment. In my opinion the
FSF is only slitting its own throat by siding with Google on this topic.
However, the die is cast: the FSF submitted it's amicus brief, so any
further discussion is moot; but if you like, sure.
(I would point out that if you've inferred that I'm in favor of
copyrights on software, or something along those lines, you'd be
mistaken. Or copyrights on GUI interfaces, or copyrights on...or
patents on rounded corners...or maybe patents at all. The point is
that, in an imperfect world, a stronger GPL is better than a weaker
GPL. It's strictly a question of lesser evils. Anyhow.)
-Thufir
More information about the License-discuss
mailing list