Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2003 11:10:34 +0100 From: Mark Murray <mark@grondar.org> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Ugly Huge BSD Monster Message-ID: <200309051010.h85AAYqi036282@grimreaper.grondar.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 05 Sep 2003 01:57:13 PDT." <3F584FE9.D324DDFE@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Terry Lambert writes: > Mark Murray wrote: > > Brett Glass writes: > > > So, yes, if you have read GPLed code, you are at serious risk. At any > > > time, the FSF could claim that your work was derivative and had to be > > > given away for free. You might prevail in court, but doing so could be > > > just as costly as losing the proceeds from your work. > > > > Is that the extent of the 'risk'? Pure supposition? > > > > I'll start worrying when there is an enforceable precedent in my > > area. > > Spectators should realize that Brett is arguing from the point > of view of U.S. Jurisdiction, while Mark is arguing from the point > of view of South African jurisdiction. I am arguing from the point of view of non-us jusdiction (what parts of it I understand). I am currently a .EU resident, and the company that I work for is .US based. A large difference between .US law and .EU law is that .EU law looks at the _intent_ of actions and contracts and actions more strongly than .US law does (this is changing). .US law looks at actual words more strongly than .EU does. The GPL is very careful to mention right in the beginning what its _intentions_ are, and thus places right in the "constitution" of the license an explanation of what it is trying to achieve. These words are: <quote origin=GPL> The licenses for most software are designed to take away your freedom to share and change it. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software--to make sure the software is free for all its users. This General Public License applies to most of the Free Software Foundation's software and to any other program whose authors commit to using it. (Some other Free Software Foundation software is covered by the GNU Library General Public License instead.) You can apply it to your programs, too. </quote> ... and it goes on to explain in more detail what this means. Notice use of words like "intended". I find it very hard to believe that a .US judge reading this won't take the _written_ _intent_ of the license heavily into account. (I'm not talking about some local hack of a judge who can hardly turn on a PC, I'm talking about a precedent-setting, smart appeal judge whose pronouncements are likely to make law, /a la'/ the Bernstein case.) Other rantings and ravings by the flourescent-pink-spectacles crowd are _not_ written into the license, and are thus no more relevant to it than this opininon of mine. > One of Mark's early involvements in FreeBSD came when FreeBSD > cryptography developement moved to South Africa under Mark's > ministrations to avoid US ITAR export restrictions and laws on > munitions, effectively pretending that the U.S. laws didn't > actually exist. Non-relevant tangent. > So if you are outside U.S. Jurisdiction (either directly or by > treaty), and don't care about being "Skylarov'ed" by the U.S. > government should you ever visit the U.S., then Marks points > are completely valid. I am effectively in .US juristiction, given that my employer has to comply with .US law. I may avoid any jail sentence, but I would count losing my job as being pretty bloody bad. As a .EU resident, I am at great (theoretical) risk of .US legal processes, because of strong cooperation pacts between .EU and .US. M -- Mark Murray iumop ap!sdn w,I idlaH
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200309051010.h85AAYqi036282>