3 ms·
You mean in court? Of course, not! That's the point of a chilling strategy, you know?
by cschwarm 16y ago
You mean in court?
Of course, not! That's the point of a chilling strategy, you know?
- rbanffy 16y agoSo, nothing happens and, therefore, it's part of a chilling strategy? I am not sure if I can follow.
- cschwarm 16y agoIt's a chilling strategy because the costs of not using a GPL software is always less than a legal fight. Also, you do have rather established legal definitions of 'collective' and 'derivative works'. See, for example, Laurence Rosen: "Open Source Licensing". Then, why does the GPL3 not use them? Instead, is uses 'work based on' IIRC. So, why's that? In my opinion, the resulting (legal) uncertainty is intentional. Another reason: If the interpretation of the FSF is true, all works that ever linked dynamically against a Microsoft library would be derivative works of said library. Does it makes sense that companies like Adobe try to build a business on such shaky legal grounds?
- rbanffy 16y agoSo, the FSF is out to obstruct the use of GPL software. Who would have imagined that?
- cschwarm 16y agoYeah, totally unbelievable, isn't it? For they give away their stuff with no strings attached! Oh, wait...
- rbanffy 16y agoNot only it comes with no strings attached (as being Free Software requires), the GPL ensures nobody will ever be able to attach any strings to it. The only thing you can't do with code derived from GPL'ed code is attaching strings to it. Your clients should celebrate it.