Re: Copyright lawyers analysis of Andreas Pour's Interpretation
Raul Miller wrote:
[ ... ]
> > He is technically literate, and is an avid FreeBSD user and active
> > software developer. He established a BBS in 1983 that later became
> > part of FidoNet and was in service for a total of 14 years.
> >
> > He analysed part of Andreas' interpretation for me free of charge.
> > This was done on an informal basis (during our lunchbreak).
> > Unfortunately I don't feel like broadcasting his name on the net. I
> > would like to give a list of his findings. In the following list "he"
> > refers to the copyright lawyer and "he agreed" means the copyright
> > lawyer agreed with the portion of Andreas Pour's interpretation being
> > discussed.
>
> I the potential for problems with this. For example, directing his
> attention to certain aspects of the license during lunch, you'd likely be
> glossing over what I see as the major flaw of Andreas Pour's argument:
> his concept of what a program is (he seems to think that a program is a
> file, where the GPL indicates that the usual case is that a program is
> a collection of files).
Wrong, I don't think that a Program is a single file. I don't know where you
come up with this stuff . . .
[ ... ]
> > * He agreed that one could not relicense software under the XFree
> > license+++ under the GPL, as the XFree license prohibits this.
>
> No problem.
Glad you agree with that . . . . This does pose problems with
Gnome/Gimp/etc., under my understanding of your reading, which appears to
require that the entire work -- including dynamically linked libraries -- be
licensed under the GPL.
Ciao,
Andreas
Reply to: