On 8/18/20 4:57 PM, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
Lawrence Rosen dixit:
This has been proposed before. What is different now is that the Public
Software Fund is going to stand behind this process, and defend the
project's editor against lawsuits by any licensors who object to this
relicense.
I’m not convinced that “don’t need to worry” and the “Public Software
Fund” are sufficient reasons to violate the “no relicensing” rule of
law.
The wording of most of the licences is also pretty clear:*these* terms
(their wording) is to be copied, not any equivalent one.
Yes, what I'm proposing goes against the law. The question is what harm
is created and what benefit is created, not whether a law exists or not.
If you think that every law is always obeyed, I don't know what to say
to you. Legislation (and copyright is created by legislation) is not
law. Law is immutable and inviolable. Otherwise ... it's not a law. 32
ft/sec/sec is a law. 300,000m/s is a law. F=MA, E=IR, E=MC2, I2C, these
are all laws which cannot be broken. Copyright is legislation and is
frequently violated.
_______________________________________________
The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not
necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the
Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@lists.opensource.org
http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
