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

Re: Artistic and LGPL compatibility in jar files



In message <[🔎] 20091217024135.AF5A9F7114@nail.towers.org.uk>, MJ Ray <mjr@phonecoop.coop> writes
Andrew Dalke wrote:
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.
[...]
> Read it for yourself, make sure you've got a copy of the GPL next >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.

This part followed "if it's the book I think it is, then I already
have read it".  Maybe the contradictions aren't in the part of the
book linked, but elsewhere in the book read.  The link seemed to be to
a PDF of part of a book and Anthony W. Youngman wrote that he couldn't
be bothered to read it.  Maybe a proper citation instead of a bare URL
would have helped avoid this confusion.  (Line wraps would help too.)

Spot on. I tried to get back to find the TOC of the book, but once I stripped the page url, all I got was the home page, with no useful links I could find to get at the rest of the book.

Further, Anthony W. Youngman isn't the only debian-legal contributor
to think Larry Rosen's interpretations should not be taken wholesale,
nor the only one who can't give full citations because those
impressions were formed by interactions as much as literature.  I'm
another and I'm pretty sure there are others.

Okay, I'll explain LONG-hand my problems with Larry.

His critique of the GPL is based *entirely* on the premise that the GPL *implicitly* allows sublicensing. The GPL itself in black letter states "if the GPL does not explicitly allow sublicencing, then it isn't allowed" (not an exact quote I'll admit ... but it's what the GPL says). I think I pointed to that very clause ...

I'm sorry, but if a lawyer can't understand BASIC legalese, then I don't trust them to be able to understand anything else!

Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - anthony@thewolery.demon.co.uk


Reply to: