I'm not yet willing to say that this discussion is off-topic, but I'd urge everyone participating in it to be mindful of the inboxes of others.
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 8:57 AM, Lawrence Rosen <[email protected]> wrote: > [topic changed from "License which requires watermarking?"] > > Hi Bruce, > > You keep referring to the enormous cost of litigation and you encourage > companies to err on the "conservative side" of this GPL/LGPL issue. You > should also consider the potential cost to a plaintiff for falsely accusing a > defendant of copyright infringement, even outside of court. I would also like > you to weigh the frustrated expectations of licensors who choose between the > GPL and LGPL on mistaken grounds, expecting certain behavior by their > licensees that they won't be able to force even in a court fight. > > FOSS is no longer a small-business enterprise where a random copyright owner > can threaten licensees to force the disclosure of proprietary code and expect > to win simply because of community pressure. (At the very least, you > shouldn't expect open source lawyers like me to respond to that form of > community pressure on a list like this!) > > The first question one should ask about copyright infringement situations is: > "Do we have an infringement?" In other words, "Has the defendant created a > derivative work?" Only then does one ask, "Is this derivative work licensed > (under certain conditions)?" This analysis must precede even the *allegation* > of infringement! > > As to that latter question about license conditions, BOTH the GPL and the > LGPL require the publication of the source code of derivative works. No > difference! So what is the proper criteria for choosing between the GPL and > LGPL? Does anyone here actually contend that the difference between these two > licenses lies in the definition of a "derivative work"? Or that the GPL and > LGPL impose different burdens on licensees depending upon what kind of > derivative work they create? > > /Larry > > Lawrence Rosen > Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com) > 3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482 > Office: 707-485-1242 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Bruce Perens [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2013 6:58 PM > To: [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] License which requires watermarking? > (Attribution Provision) > > Would that we all had infinite budgets for going to court :-) But short of > having them, many businesses choose, quite sensibly, to err on the > conservative side of this sort of issue and will honor the license whether or > not a court would make them do so. This will also get them through an M&A > intellectual property audit in better shape than otherwise. > > I do know a company that spent money, including on me, to argue just this > sort of issue recently. They spent more than most businesses would be able to > endure. > > Thanks > > Bruce > > On 01/01/2013 05:23 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote: >> Really? That's not wise. How would the choice of license affect the >> *legal* determination of whether the resulting work is or is not a >> derivative work for which source code must be disclosed? > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
