Chad Perrin wrote: > Take the most restrictive reasonable interpretation of both if you want > to play it safe.
That's true as far as it goes but leaves out the fun part of the analysis. The evaluation of risk -- particularly legal risk -- involves the analysis of many factors. Sometimes "the most restrictive reasonable interpretation" is way beyond what actual risks exists: Who will have standing to sue? What are potential damages? Is an injunction likely? Can I easily design-around or re-implement? What is the timeframe of the risk? And with regard to this irrational fear of the reach of the GPL regarding functional linking that is but one minor factor in a complex derivative work analysis, what is the risk that some court will force me to disclose my *copyright-independent* crown jewel proprietary stuff or give away my patents? /Larry > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:license-discuss- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Chad Perrin > Sent: Friday, December 23, 2011 9:49 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] GPL and proprietary WebAPIs > > On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 03:38:04AM -0800, Chris Travers wrote: > > > > Thus in general I think one is generally better off talking with > > upstream projects and trying to get them on board. > > Take the most restrictive reasonable interpretation of both if you want > to play it safe. After all, a change in the upstream project's > maintainership could get you in a lot of trouble if you rely entirely > on > the legally non-binding word of a project maintainer. > > -- > Chad Perrin > _______________________________________________ > License-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
