Re: Corel's apt frontend
From: Raul Miller <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > I'm not going to go into this any deeper. I've posted that definition of
> > a computer program something like a dozen times and most of the responses
> > I've gotten don't even acknowledge the key issues. I worry that a second
> > sentence would be too complicated for people.
On Thu, Nov 04, 1999 at 09:59:42AM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
> Raul! Please get off that high horse.
> I discussed this issue with two attorneys, one of whom appears to be the
> acknowledged authority on free software law. They are not nearly as sanguine
> as you. There is thus some possibility that _you_might_be_wrong_.
These are Corel's attorneys, right?
You expect them to state outright that they think their client is
violating copyright law?
In a sense it's true that any statement about law is undecided until
the courts have ruled. None of us are judges and none of what we say
counts as legal precedent.
So, it's perfectly reasonable for them to say that I might be wrong --
they're representing their client's interests and it would not be in
their client's interests for them to say that their client is wrong.
On the other hand, I think it would be wrong of me pretend that this is
anything more than a statement that this hasn't been taken to court yet.
[On the other hand, note that I'm not putting much energy into this issue
-- in my opinion, it's Ian's issue and it's up to him to pursue it.
However, I have spent more than a few hours on this already, and if
someone raises a simple point which I can address easily, I'm up to that.]
> Yes, we understand the definition of a computer program. We simply
> do not feel that it's the deciding factor in this decision, or even
> particularly relevant to the argument. You do not have to abuse us
> with comments about two sentences being too complicated for our
It's great that you feel this way, of course. But unless you provide
some references that have legal weight, please don't expect me to feel
the same way.
And, if you choose not to address the the law about the issue, why should
I take this as anything more than personal feelings?