Subject: Re: conducting a sane and efficient GPLv3, LGPLv3 Review
From: dtemeles@nvalaw.com
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 11:15:06 -0400

 Wed, 01 Aug 2007 11:15:06 -0400
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
>>