2 ms·
Eben Moglen wrote the AGPL. There's a standard process courts use to figure this stuff out. Intent fits into it. Eben Moglen clearly states what he meant in ma
by woofie11 6y ago
Eben Moglen wrote the AGPL. There's a standard process courts use to figure this stuff out. Intent fits into it. Eben Moglen clearly states what he meant in many talks. Courts favor intended interpretation of a contract. That makes the risk pretty small.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y agoI don't think this really supports your point? Eben Moglen has indeed clearly stated what he meant; he thinks free software ideals are very important and tried to write GPL-family licenses so that developers would be compelled to respect them.
- marcinzm 6y agoIntent of whom? Eben Moglen is not the owner of the copyright but merely the writer of the license. If Oracle, for example, uses AGPL would it not be their intent in using the license which actually matters?
- tzs 6y agoIn the case of ambiguity in a contract, courts look at the intent of the parties to the contract. In almost all cases Moglen will not be a party, and at least one of the actual parties will not be aware of those talks or their content, so Moglen's talks on the matter won't really be of much use. Courts will also look at the bargaining power of the parties. If the party offering the contract is a lot more powerful than the party accepting the contract, they will tend to favor the accepting party when it comes to ambiguous terms.
- woofie11 6y agoIt's a little more complex than that. The intent of the parties /drafting/ the contract do matter. Public writings clarifying the intent do as well.
- Conan_Kudo 6y agoThis is probably one of the reasons why the Free Software Foundation has such an extensive FAQ, because it's the easiest way for them to document their intent.
- woofie11 6y agoIndeed. It's hard to go back and argue a different interpretation later in court, if the intended interpretation is so clearly stated and defined.