Rick Moen wrote: > 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.
I agree with Rick, although in the FOSS context that isn't enough. WHICH of the licensors do you look to? For example, Mr. Satyanarayana plans to combine (in some way) Apache 2.0 and GPLv3 code under a GPLv2 license. Apache licensors say "That's wonderful! Go ahead and do that!" The GPLv2 authors -- not a party to this transaction, by the way -- say "We don't like that." Who does Satya listen to? And who does his downstream licensee listen to? And who does OSI suggest that any of us listen to on an important FOSS combination/project like this one? /Larry -----Original Message----- From: Luis Villa [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 1:28 PM To: License submissions for OSI review Subject: Re: [License-review] License compatibility - reg 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 license-review. [My apologies to everyone on this list for not catching and moderating the off-topic thread earlier.] Luis On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 12:48 PM, Rick Moen <[email protected]> wrote: > Quoting Matthew Flaschen ([email protected]): > >> 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 > [email protected] we know who the enemy is. --- Steven Brust > McQ! (4x80) > _______________________________________________ > License-review mailing list > [email protected] > http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review _______________________________________________ License-review mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
