|
|
|
| Authored by: PolR on Monday, July 02 2012 @ 03:27 PM EDT |
Why would the court ignore a promise made publicly? They own the copyright and
only them have standing to sue.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SilverWave on Monday, July 02 2012 @ 03:36 PM EDT |
| Equity
(law) ---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 02 2012 @ 03:41 PM EDT |
Yea.... and many - prior to the actual court tests - claimed the GPL is
invalid (among other things). There were those of us who opined the simple
logic:
If the GPL does not apply, then default Copyright Law applies which
is more limiting then the GPL!
Yet some - unbelievably - actually had to
have a Judge tell them that before they decided the GPL really doesn't put code
into the public domain after all.
You are correct that a Court will
eventually decide. But what do you figure the odds are the Court will take into
consideration the intent of the primary drafters of the license as opposed to
those who would rather believe "invalid license = public domain". Well... going
based on the track record.... I'd say odds favor the FSF - they seem to be
batting 1.000 so far.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Wol on Monday, July 02 2012 @ 04:35 PM EDT |
THIS is what you are missing.
I believe, should this ever come to a law case, that it is settled case law that
it would *have* to be ruled *against* the FSF if there was reasonable doubt.
As far as you and me are concerned, should we end up in court, there are THREE
views as to what is the correct interpretation of the licence. Yours, mine, and
the FSF's.
But in this case, there are only two. The FSF and Canonical. And case law says
"if you wrote the terms, then the other guy gets the benefit of the
doubt".
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
