hi Rick Everything you say is true, but asking FSF was way cheaper than asking a judge in a court of law ;-) I don't have enough money and interest - that's what open source is about, right?
Grahame On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 8:17 AM, Rick Moen <[email protected]> wrote: > Quoting Grahame Grieve ([email protected]): > > > About Java and GPL: > > http://www.healthintersections.com.au/?p=1225 > > Meaning no disrepect to FSF, but asking them the legal application of > GPL v 3 to a specific situation commits a depressingly common category > error. > > (1) In the general case, they are not even the licensor. > > (2) In any court case, the judge will be looking primarily to > the wording of the written licence to determine licensor's intent, > not to somebody's essay on a Web site. > > FSF has a famously maximalist notion of what 'derviative work' means, > particularly in the GPL FAQ -- which you quoted as if it were an > authority on the subject. I do not concur about it being that. It > expresses, in effect, what FSF would like, not what is. > > I would also expect the licensing and compliance manager at FSF (meaning > no disrespect to Mr. Joshua Gay), whom you likewise quoted as if he were > an authority, to reflect FSF's view about what it would like to be true. > > You say 'perception is reality' and therefore FSF's opinion has real > weight. Again, with no offence intended to FSF, no, sir. Perception is > not reality. Relevant court-precedent citations are reality. ;-> [1] > > It is indeed quite valuable to develop an understanding of what > 'derivative work' (the copyright-law term of art you are indirectly > reflecting when you quote GPLv3's jargon about 'covered work'). I > recommend reading caselaw. > > If you have sufficient money and interest, you could instead pay a > really competent copyright attorney to analyse for you how the law > applies to your situation. (I would recommend listening attentively but > also skepically, and asking sharp questions, as there is plenty of bad > advice available from lawyers, too.) Personally, I find reading caselaw > to meet my needs, but Your Mileage May Differ<tm>. > > > [1] As is common with civil law, you look for application of the legal > principals, regardless of the industry in question. So, the cases > concern games (Lewis Galoob Toys v Nintendo America, Sega v. Accolade), > music (Campbell v. Acuff-Rose), and only rarely software (Kelly v. > Arriba, Perfect 10 v. Amazon). No, you won't find a Circuit judge > saying exactly where the edge of derivative works is for GPLv3-covered > works used by Java coders, but that's not necessary to get the general > gist of how the concept works. > > -- > Cheers, Actually, time flies hate a > banana. > Rick Moen -- Micah Joel > [email protected] > McQ! (4x80) > _______________________________________________ > License-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss > -- ----- http://www.healthintersections.com.au / [email protected]/ +61 411 867 065
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
