<HTML dir=ltr><HEAD><TITLE>Re: Strong Court Ruling Upholds the Artistic License (fwd)</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=unicode">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16705" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV id=idOWAReplyText37464 dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Tahoma size=2><FONT face=Arial>></FONT><STRONG>From:</STRONG> Ben Tilly [mailto:btilly@gmail.com]<BR></FONT><FONT size=2><BR>>I therefore find it hard to believe that anyone who has read the<BR>>decision could fail to understand that precedent was *not* ignored.<BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2>I might ask for clarification to understand why they state what they </FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2>stated since I gathered from his post that he read the decision.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2>He could, of course, be wrong.</DIV></FONT>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2>>When added to the repeated comments that say that the open source<BR>>community should want the exact opposite of what most in that<BR>>community do, in fact, want, I had to ask whether the post was<BR>>intended to generate hostile responses rather than useful dialog.<BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2>I found this paragraph to be interesting:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2>"The CAFC's Jacobsen decision unwittingly attempts to radically change <BR>the risks of licensing software. The CAFC states that any failure to <BR>comply with a license provision that the license even generally calls <BR>a "condition" is an infringement rather than a breach. Thus, any <BR>licensee that violates the "conditions" of a license, even if <BR>unintentional, is subject to infringement damages."</DIV></FONT><FONT size=2></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2>
<DIV dir=ltr> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>I don't know if the analysis is correct but if so I would find it not entirely </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>euphoric.</DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr>That there was a certain bias was obvious when the terms "Mr. Moglen</DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>and his followers" and "wishful thinking" was used. It's always useful</DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>to understand where folks are coming from when evaluating what they</DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>say/write.</DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>That said, Mr. Moglen does have a position and followers that are not </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>always aligned with open source but the goals of the FSF<FONT size=2>. There are </FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2>important differences between </FONT><FONT size=2>the two.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2>I read what Mr. Moglen writes with great interest but I keep in mind</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2>two things:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2>1) He's an advocate for a certain position and not just a lawyer. This</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2>position is somewhat similar but not identical to my own. Therefore</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>certain strategies are good for him but not necessarily good for me.</DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>That's okay, of course, since he's not my lawyer. Neither is he the</DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>lawyer for the OSF.</DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2>2) In his profession, reality is whatever he can convince a judge to</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2>say is reality. Therefore he can argue with complete sincerity and </FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2>conviction that </FONT><FONT size=2>reality is X if he believes he has a strong enough </FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2>case to have X upheld.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2>Even if !X can also be argued with complete sincerity and conviction</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2>by a different lawyer for the same reasons...</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2>In our profession, reality is whatever we can convince our compilers</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2>to accept as reality. :) </DIV></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr> </DIV></FONT>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2>>To complete the analogy your professional opinion should be<BR>>diametrically opposed to all other publicly available information, and<BR>>your opinion should repeatedly say that people don't want what they<BR>>say they do, and do want what they say they don't.</FONT><FONT size=2></DIV></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2>I wonder sometimes if we really understand what we want from a legal</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2>perspective. I read this more as a "beware what you ask for" kind</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2>of warning.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>As in "we got our victory but it comes with some baggage".</DIV></FONT><FONT size=2>
<DIV dir=ltr><BR>>My understanding is that software copyright holders enjoy the exact<BR>>same rights as other copyright holders. The difference is that in<BR>>software we tend to use copyrighted material in different ways.<BR></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>Some lawyers disagree with respect to EULAs, licensing vs ownership,</DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>etc. Perhaps Jacobsen v. Katzer is not a good example of this. I was </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>following the Blizzard case with more interest.</DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>I look forward to Marc Whipple's assessement of the OP's piece.</DIV></DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>