Subject: RE: encforceability of Open Source Licences (Re: (OT) - NOT A Major Blow to Copyleft Theory)
From: "Lawrence Rosen" <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2008 17:56:20 -0800

> > I guess the question is how close to reality is his analysis.
> > Given that IANAL I haven't a clue but the responses to his posts
> > have been less than illuminating.
> 
> I concur: it is apparent that the majority of posters to this list
> think that this theory is unlikely to be bourne out.  What isn't
> apparent -- to me at least -- is why they think that.

What is not apparent to me is why a few of you still believe that this
discussion can profitably take place on license-discuss. The prospect of
engaging in public dialog about contentious legal hypothetical
situations--particularly where there is already litigation (or even threat
of litigation) that involves similar open source issues--keeps many lawyers
from commenting here. Everything else is amateur speculation of dubious
value. 

Creative Commons, FSF, OSI and other organizations have already expressed
themselves in their amicus brief. Read it and draw your own conclusions.

Beyond that, I agree with Ernie that we've reached the useful end of this
thread, at least here. Please can we stop this?

/Larry


> -----Original Message-----
> From: zooko [mailto:zooko@zooko.com]
> Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2008 5:32 PM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: Re: encforceability of Open Source Licences (Re: (OT) - NOT A
> Major Blow to Copyleft Theory)
> 
> On Feb 9, 2008, at 4:28 PM, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote:
> 
> > I guess the question is how close to reality is his analysis.
> > Given that IANAL I haven't a clue but the responses to his posts
> > have been less than illuminating.
> 
> I concur: it is apparent that the majority of posters to this list
> think that this theory is unlikely to be bourne out.  What isn't
> apparent -- to me at least -- is why they think that.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Zooko