Subject: Re: GPLv3 draft
From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 00:17:39 +0900

>>>>> "simo" == simo  <> writes:

Thank you for a well-considered and polite reply.

    simo> I wish I had enough knowledge of all matters to be a master,
    simo> I am not and I humbly submit only what is evidently off
    simo> track.

I wish the law were that easy. :-)  It's arguable that lawyers should
stop thinking like lawyers and start thinking like ordinary people,
but the fact is that they do not.  Legal argument places weight on
things that are still highly unintuitive to me.

    simo> [...] the most safe thing is to ask the authors of the
    simo> software how they interpret the 2 licenses and if they give
    simo> me permission to combine 2 works (unless licenses have a
    simo> very clear history of compatibility).

But that runs against the principle of free software.  The whole point
of free software is that you *shouldn't* have to ask.  I agree the
conclusion is unavoidable, but that doesn't keeping from wishing we
could avoid it.

    >> ObRef FSB: if that argument is strategically correct, then
    >> businesses will need to make choices with very-long-term
    >> implications as soon as the GPLv3 is published.

    simo> That's true of any license.

Only true of strong copyleft licenses, actually.

Graduate School of Systems and Information Engineering   University of Tsukuba        Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
        Economics of Information Communication and Computation Systems
          Experimental Economics, Microeconomic Theory, Game Theory