[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Artistic and LGPL compatibility in jar files

In message <[🔎] DED71701-A16B-4597-AC48-B1E0F79164FF@dalkescientific.com>, Andrew Dalke <dalke@dalkescientific.com> writes
On Dec 13, 2009, at 2:24 AM, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
In message <[🔎] F4CCEC28-FE42-4AF3-B0C0-C832A6B0DE1D@dalkescientific.com>, Andrew Dalke <dalke@dalkescientific.com> writes
Well, the GPL does allow relicensing to newer versions of the GPL...


Read what the GPL says, CAREFULLY.

Here is relevant commentary in Rosen's book "Open Source Licensing" book at


OMG! Larry Rosen!

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.

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.

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 ... :-(

Anthony W. Youngman - anthony@thewolery.demon.co.uk

Reply to: