Subject: Re: Inappropriate postings from non-lawyers
From: jcowan@reutershealth.com
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 15:40:12 -0500

Richard Schilling scripsit:

> Look, folks the entire purpose of a license of any kind is to have 
> something to present to a judge in case something goes wrong, and to 
> clarify what rights are transferred to the end user.  The true test of 
> a license (for open source work in a business) is what happens in court 
> and in business negotiations.

If you think that's the entire purpose of the GPL, you haven't read it.

> If us non-lawyers defer to lawyers and listen more we may have more 
> lawyers providing constructive input.

As a matter of observable fact, being a lawyer or a nonlawyer has nothing
to do with the constructiveness of one's input to this list.

> Obviously, people are arguing that the GPL is invalid and providing 
> some detailed analysis.  I hope opensource.org pays attention to that 
> and gets self-critical about their criteria really quick.  At present, 
> they are endorsing licenses that don't mean anything in front of a 
> judge.

You don't know that, and neither does anyone else.

-- 
John Cowan  jcowan@reutershealth.com  www.reutershealth.com  www.ccil.org/~cowan
I am he that buries his friends alive and drowns them and draws them
alive again from the water. I came from the end of a bag, but no bag
went over me.  I am the friend of bears and the guest of eagles. I am
Ringwinner and Luckwearer; and I am Barrel-rider.  --Bilbo to Smaug
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3