Subject: RE: conducting a sane and efficient GPLv3, LGPLv3 Review
From: "Lawrence Rosen" <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 08:32:05 -0700

> Ah, mea culpa - I did not mean to reference Rosen in my previous
> posting.  I meant to reference Moglen....

Thanks for the clarification, Dave. 

Now all that I have to do is understand the basis for John's comment:

> >> Just that the disagreement between Larry and most other people is of
> >> long standing and unlikely to go away, but has hitherto been of little
> >> practical effect.

Disagreement with "most other people"? Hogwash! As I gather from my
conversations with many other attorneys, most other people think FSF and
SFLC are wrong on the legal issue of combining GPL software in collective
works with other works. I will admit that this disagreement "has been of
little practical effect," but this is at least partly because some people on
this list and elsewhere make general statements like yours with little basis
in law or fact.

I'll keep trying, John, despite your gloomy prognostication about effects.

/Larry

Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)
3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482
707-485-1242 * cell: 707-478-8932 * fax: 707-485-1243
Skype: LawrenceRosen
Author of "Open Source Licensing: Software Freedom and 
                Intellectual Property Law" (Prentice Hall 2004)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dtemeles@nvalaw.com [mailto:dtemeles@nvalaw.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 8:15 AM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: Re: conducting a sane and efficient GPLv3, LGPLv3 Review
> 
> Ah, mea culpa - I did not mean to reference Rosen in my previous
> posting.  I meant to reference Moglen but there was a disconnect
> between my fingers and my brain.  A perfect example of why I should
> read more and post less!
> 
> Quoting dtemeles@nvalaw.com:
> 
> > FWIW, I and many of my colleagues in IP law think Rosen is incorrect
> > on a number of key points.  However, given that the language of the
> > GPL is clear as mud, there is plenty of room for reasonable minds to
> > differ on how it should/will be applied to any given set of facts.  In
> > the end. the only opinion that will matter in any given case is that
> > of the judge who hears the case (or the appeal).
> >
> > What Quoting John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>:
> >
> >> Alexander Terekhov scripsit:
> >>
> >>> Is there any followup to this exciting development of Rosen-vs-GNU
> >>> wisdom? :-)
> >>
> >> Just that the disagreement between Larry and most other people is of
> >> long standing and unlikely to go away, but has hitherto been of little
> >> practical effect.  My own view (IANAL), is that Larry is probably right
> >> on the letter of the law, but that community practice counts for a lot
> >> too, even in court (judges have been known to look to the way the
> >> relevant community traditionally interpreted standard contracts, e.g.).
> >>
> >> It may or may not be legal to create combined works with GPLed and
> >> proprietary parts, but it is definitely tacky and you shouldn't do it.
> >>
> >> --
> >> John Cowan  cowan@ccil.org  http://ccil.org/~cowan
> >> The competent programmer is fully aware of the strictly limited
> >> size   of his own
> >> skull; therefore he approaches the programming task in full
> >> humility, and among
> >> other things he avoids clever tricks like the plague.  --Edsger
> Dijkstra
> >>