[License-review] License compatibility - reg
luis at lu.is
Wed Jun 26 20:28:13 UTC 2013
I did not notice this was on the license-review list. Please move it
to license-discuss or somewhere else; it is not appropriate for
[My apologies to everyone on this list for not catching and moderating
the off-topic thread earlier.]
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 12:48 PM, Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com> wrote:
> 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)
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at opensource.org
More information about the License-review