Subject: RE: JBoss aquired by Red Hat
From: "Lawrence Rosen" <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 09:05:52 -0700

<snip>
> ... contract law imposes much greater
> obligations on both parties. Liability is one of the most dangerous
> thing for example. (And in some countries more than others).

Please explain this. I'm aware of no such result anywhere.

/Larry

> -----Original Message-----
> From: simo [mailto:s@ssimo.org]
> Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2006 7:16 AM
> To: Stephen J. Turnbull
> Cc: Bernard Lang; fsb@crynwr.com
> Subject: Re: JBoss aquired by Red Hat
> 
> On Sun, 2006-04-30 at 22:39 +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> > >>>>> "simo" == simo  <s@ssimo.org> writes:
> >
> >     simo> But there are also many problems in contracts v. licenses.
> >     simo> For Joe the common FS programmer it is much easier to stay
> >     simo> away from contract law.
> >
> > Problems, yes, but I don't believe any lawyer would tell you that it's
> > easier.  Larry Rosen, for one, clearly advocates using a contract---
> > just use your favorite license, but get licensees to sign it.  How is
> > that "harder" than a bare license?  You can still use copyright law
> > for enforcement if you think that's easier, too.
> >
> > Sure, managing the paperwork can be somewhat annoying, but that's a
> > different issue from what I think you're getting at.  And surely if we
> > (as a community) decided that's the way to go, several hackers would
> > come up with some software to implement it efficiently and open source
> > it, and it would quickly become a non-issue.  I recommend we hire Tom
> > Lord to write it. :-)
> 
> I am not sure, it is that easy, contract law imposes much greater
> obligations on both parties. Liability is one of the most dangerous
> thing for example. (And in some countries more than others).
> 
> >     simo> You either seek the release of the source or stop the
> >     simo> distribution of infringing binaries.
> >
> > Not me.  If I use a license that requires release of source, I want
> > the source released.  Wasn't that clear from my post?  That was my #1
> > reason for preferring a contractual license.
> 
> Well that's depend on how you strongly do you feel about a violation I
> suppose. I am generally benevolent, I do not want your code if you do
> not want to share it, but then do not pretend to use mine. I always give
> the choice of stopping distribution, but that's my preference. If you
> like to use the GPL as a lever to make others code available against
> their will that's up to you.
> 
> Simo.