Re: Artistic and LGPL compatibility in jar files
On Dec 14, 2009, at 9:16 PM, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> I can't be bothered to read the book, but if it's the book I think it is, then I already have read it and came to the conclusion that the author was blind.
Still, I have given references to Stallman, to the GNU pages, to the XEmacs project, and to Rosen, in order to back up my views and understanding.
I would like to see some external references to back up your statements.
> Read it for yourself, make sure you've got a copy of the GPL next to you so you can *check* every reference he makes, and see if you come to the same conclusion I did, namely that the black letter of the GPL flatly contradicted the core assumption on which a large part of this book is based.
You haven't read it and you made that conclusion? It sounds like you are promulgating hearsay and rumor. There's a free online copy which I linked to, and if what you are saying is right then it should be easy to point out some of the contradictions.
Are you sure you haven't confused Don Rosenberg with Larry Rosen? Stallman wrote
http://richardstallman.sys-con.com/node/128143/mobile
> Don Rosenberg's review in LWM (Vol. 3, issue 4) of Larry Rosen's book, Open Source Licensing, did double-duty as a platform for FUD about the GNU GPL.
and while Stallman expresses disagreements with Rosen on "requirements on combined works", he is much more directed towards Rosenberg.
Stallman also writes in:
http://richardstallman.sys-con.com/node/48833/mobile
> Richard Stallman writes: Maureen O'Gara's review in Linux Business Week of Larry Rosen's book misrepresents the Free Software Foundation's views, when it says we criticized Rosen for "recognizing...licenses other than the GPL".
I find nothing by Stallman which expresses similar levels of dismissiveness towards Rosen as you have, which should have arisen if the book was as against the GPL as you say.
BTW, none of the reviewers on Amazon agree with you
http://www.amazon.com/Open-Source-Licensing-Software-Intellectual/product-reviews/0131487876/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1
and I thought that if the the book would be that poorly written then there would be some evidence.
I have now read a few chapters of Rosen and found them to be instructive, interesting, and clear.
> Oh - and I've more than enough experience of lawyers who's grasp of the law appears tenuous, I don't kow-tow to them until they've earnt my respect. (I respect them as a *person* until they *earn* my respect as a lawyer. If this is who I think he is, he lost that ... :-(
Congratulations.
As for me, "citations needed."
Andrew
dalke@dalkescientific.com
Reply to: