Archive of UserLand's first discussion group, started October 5, 1998.

Re: Guido and Richard

Author:Fredrik Lundh
Posted:9/9/2000; 2:43:13 AM
Topic:Guido and Richard
Msg #:21055 (In response to 21032)
Prev/Next:21054 / 21056

Sorry, Eric, but if I need legal advise, I probably won't hire you or your lawyer ;-)

First, it's important to note that CNRI and RMS agrees on the basic principles here. Your forum argument is mostly bogus; RMS doesn't necessarily want a court to decide what happens, he's just worried that the clause clashes with GPL as it stands today. As BeOpen's Tim Peters put it on comp.lang.python:

I wouldn't be surprised if RMS would also *like* the applicable law to be specified! His reaction has been much more of a "hmmm" than a "NO! THAT'S EVIL!" so far. Perhaps something related will even show up in GPL 3. But, for now, GPL 2 is what exists, and he has to defend it for what it says.

I confess I don't see the problem. GPL clause 6 says "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein", which is presumably the source of the conflict, and I just don't see *which* right granted by the GPL is restricted by CNRI spelling out the intended meaning of their license.

[see the full post here]

Second, Stallman *is* talking directly to CNRI. Stallman's legal advisor (don't remember his name) hasn't been directly involved yet; as I mentioned earlier, we're all waiting for him to talk to CNRI's lawyers, face to face. Since both parties agree on the basics, the negotiations are open (it's not a "do as I say or else" situation). Quoting Stallman himself:

Whether a given license A is compatible with another license B is not a decision, not a choice someone can make. It is a judgement about the nature of the situation, based on the facts and laws as they exist /.../

However, law and its consequences are not as rigorous as mathematics. It is peculiar that their lawyers think the licenses are compatible. I suspect that they have missed some point about the GPL, but that is just a guess; I have not spoken with them and do not know their arguments. It is conceivable they saw something I and our lawyer missed.

We are trying to arrange for him to talk with them. That should at least make it possible for one side to convince the other about whether the licenses are compatible. If they can convince us that the incompatibility we saw is not real, that would be fine--it would make the problem disappear. Alternatively (and I think more likely) our lawyer will show them the incompatibility they did not see.

[see the full post here]



There are responses to this message:

This page was archived on 6/13/2001; 4:56:35 PM.

© Copyright 1998-2001 UserLand Software, Inc.