<div dir="ltr">Please STOP SENNDING ME THIS SHITT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU NERD MOTHERFUCKERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2008/8/17 Tzeng, Nigel H. <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Nigel.Tzeng@jhuapl.edu">Nigel.Tzeng@jhuapl.edu</a>></span><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr"><div class="Ih2E3d"><font size="2" face="Tahoma"><font face="Arial">></font><b>From:</b> Ben Tilly [mailto:<a href="mailto:btilly@gmail.com" target="_blank">btilly@gmail.com</a>]<br></font></div><div class="Ih2E3d">
<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>
<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.</font></div><div class="Ih2E3d">
<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><div dir="ltr"><font size="2">I found this paragraph to be interesting:</font></div><div class="Ih2E3d">
<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."</font></div>
<font size="2"></font></div></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. :) </font></div></div></font></div><div class="Ih2E3d">
<div dir="ltr"> </div>
<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"></font></div></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 size="2"><div class="Ih2E3d">
<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><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></font></div></blockquote></div><br></div>