[DUG] Open source licences

[Ben Taylor]

the author of 'the blog' has some convincing credentials:

"Eben Moglen is professor of law and legal history at Columbia University Law
School. He serves without fee as General Counsel of the Free Software Foundation."

the host of the discussion is the fsf, which also provides legal services to the
open-source development community.

another quote:

"Despite the FUD, as a copyright license the GPL is absolutely solid. That's why
I've been able to enforce it dozens of times over nearly ten years, without ever
going to court.

Meanwhile, much murmuring has been going on in recent months to the supposed effect
that the absence of judicial enforcement, in US or other courts, somehow
demonstrates that there is something wrong with the GPL, that its unusual policy
goal is implemented in a technically indefensible way, or that the Free Software
Foundation, which authors the license, is afraid of testing it in court. Precisely
the reverse is true. We do not find ourselves taking the GPL to court because no one
has yet been willing to risk contesting it with us there. "

anyway, as a contributor to open-source software, (mpl/bsd though, not gpl), i'm not
at all worried about anyone attempting to "claim ownership" of the software.

b.


grant's email, accidentally sent off-list:
-----------------------------------------------------
Like I said, has anyone actually tested it, the author of the blog you pointed to
suggests that it has not been tested.

and given that a view of a single lawyer is not necessarily (and not in exactly 50 %
of all cases) the view of the court.

and I still doubt very much it ever will get tested.

"In some Common Law jurisdictions," well if your referring to the author of the blog
then that means US law of which is completely different than Aussie and or NZ law.


Do I disagree with copyright law, No , but its very very difficult to enforce.

Grant.

Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com