For ZACH WEGNER

[bob]

Yes, of course, "Vas" can not defend himself and he needs the help of George, Rolf and others.

All this could be useful for is an "appeal" later. "Your honor, I was represented by inadequate counsel. They were incompetent. I ask that you throw that verdict out and require a new trial where I can find some technically competent people to defend me more properly."

I think Chris W and Uri are pretty competent technically are they not?

Not in their discussions about the GPL, no. But Chris/Uri are not the prime noise-makers either.

[Michael Sherwin]

Okay guys, I see my mistake.

A work based on or a derivitive work refers to 'me' copying/modifying one of those programs by someone else. If I create my own derivitive work by rewriting the portions that I use then that is okay!

[chrisw]

Yes, of course, "Vas" can not defend himself and he needs the help of George, Rolf and others.

All this could be useful for is an "appeal" later. "Your honor, I was represented by inadequate counsel. They were incompetent. I ask that you throw that verdict out and require a new trial where I can find some technically competent people to defend me more properly."

I think Chris W and Uri are pretty competent technically are they not?

Not in their discussions about the GPL, no. But Chris/Uri are not the prime noise-makers either.

The nerve of the man!

Bob, you're an academic, your work experience in commercial legal matters is about zero. By contrast, I ran companies and dealt on the capital markets for my extensive work experience - one gets quite an understanding of what is legal and what is not, and more to the point how it works in practice and how to keep out of the trouble that is lurking out there. I am very confident about my line on the GPL and find yours almost entirely theoretical, based on how you would like it to be interpreted, not how it is and would be and extremely dogmatic - much law gets interpreted almost randomly, much depends on the judge and much depends on how well a case is argued - nothing is so black and white as you claim. That GPL is a mess, it's a licence for and by amateurs, basically one big bluff.

[bnemias]

That GPL is a mess, it's a licence for and by amateurs, basically one big bluff.

The "mess" is caused by people who don't understand it, refuse to, and then pretend they are experts at copyright law. The license was conceived and is used by professionals and amateurs alike. You are free to be against the GPL, but calling everyone an amateur is childish. Do some research about cases involving the GPL. It isn't a bluff at all.

[chrisw]

That GPL is a mess, it's a licence for and by amateurs, basically one big bluff.

The "mess" is caused by people who don't understand it, refuse to, and then pretend they are experts at copyright law. The license was conceived and is used by professionals and amateurs alike. You are free to be against the GPL, but calling everyone an amateur is childish. Do some research about cases involving the GPL. It isn't a bluff at all.

The only experts in copyright law are specialist lawyers. If one wants to launch a case one needs to consult. Meanwhile, in the commercial world, we have to get on as best we can trying to stick to the rules and not fall into simple traps. This means knowing what the rules are and interpreting them in a reasonable manner. In a commercial sense GPL seems a disaster. Licencing a program for free use subject to restrictions ... and if the restrictions are broken? Where's the commercial sense in doing anything about it? What would a litigant hope to gain? Zilch. Nobody launches legal actions on principal you know - commercial reasons only - first thing to learn.

[bnemias]

In a commercial sense GPL seems a disaster. Licencing a program for free use subject to restrictions ... and if the restrictions are broken? Where's the commercial sense in doing anything about it?

I don't understand your point here. The GPL is about keeping software free, so of course it doesn't align well with commercial interests. So commercial entities avoid using GPL code, or they release source. When they don't, they get sued.

What would a litigant hope to gain? Zilch. Nobody launches legal actions on principal you know - commercial reasons only - first thing to learn.

Except that the GPL exists to facilitate free software. There have been several suits (mostly settled out of court, but some in court as well) that are launched entirely on principle. For example, the GPL code found in a firmware upgrade to Actiontec routers. There's no commercial interest there. But there will now be development projects based on those routers as a result. Tomato, DD-WRT, or other 3rd party firmwares will likely be built now. It's true there was a monetary settlement, but only because Verizon forced it to trial by refusing to supply the source when caught.

[chrisw]

In a commercial sense GPL seems a disaster. Licencing a program for free use subject to restrictions ... and if the restrictions are broken? Where's the commercial sense in doing anything about it?

I don't understand your point here. The GPL is about keeping software free, so of course it doesn't align well with commercial interests. So commercial entities avoid using GPL code. When they don't, they get sued.

What would a litigant hope to gain? Zilch. Nobody launches legal actions on principal you know - commercial reasons only - first thing to learn.

Except that the GPL exists to facilitate free software. There have been several suits (mostly settled out of court, but some in court as well) that are launched entirely on principle. For example, the GPL code found in a firmware upgrade to Actiontec routers. There's no commercial interest there. But there will now be development projects based on those routers as a result. Tomato, DD-WRT, or other 3rd party firmwares will likely be built now. It's true there was a monetary settlement, but only because Verizon forced it to trial by refusing to supply the source when caught.

For every general rule there'll be exceptions, nevertheless, litigants go to court in the main because the financial risk/reward calcution is favourable. For free software violations, the reward financially is zero, since royalties do not apply. Therefore only principle applies. The FSF will have a life all of its own, it might, on principle, run after someone for a GPL violation, but it will reserve its firepower for serious cases. This case, so far, appears to be about as unserious as it gets. Some unproven anyway, UCI code that everybody has to use in a non-AI, non-engine part of a program. Really?! That's absolutely worth enforcing. Not.