[License-review] License compatibility - reg

Rick Moen rick at linuxmafia.com
Wed Jun 26 19:48:54 UTC 2013

Quoting Matthew Flaschen (matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu):

> I think the FSF position is relevant.  Listening to the license
> stakeholder is a conservative approach.

If I might ask, relevant to what?

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.

As I've pointed out before when this matter has come up in the past, the
licence drafter is -- in the general case -- not the licensor at all.

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.)

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.)

Cheers,                 Snowden is accused of giving information to "the enemy".
Rick Moen               He gave information to the American people.  Well, now
rick at linuxmafia.com     we know who the enemy is.             --- Steven Brust
McQ! (4x80)

More information about the License-review mailing list