3 ms·

> Part A does exist It doesn't. In the readline example, the author was explicitly saying, "Let users decide to link against a thing so I can do an end run ar

> Part A does exist It doesn't. In the readline example, the author was explicitly saying, "Let users decide to link against a thing so I can do an end run around licensing issues." Stallman is claiming the judge would be harsh because the judge knows prog1 with "choice" of subterfuge.a or inconvenientLicense.a is really just prog1 trying to get around an inconvenient license with which they must comply. "inconvenientLicense.a" is "Part A" of my example, and the author knew that users will link to inconvenientLicense.a. (Otherwise why have the choice at all?) With the Google example, the devs said, "Let's do a clean room implementation so that the entire VM has our preferred license." There was no equivalent inconvenientLicense.a on any Android device. You can talk about J2ME existing in general, but that was what I mean by saying that "Part A" doesn't exist. It's an important distinction-- it's the reason why Oracle basically was reduced to arguing copyright of an API. That's the only conceivable thing that could have inconvenientLicense on the device. Edit: clarification

kmeisthax 6y ago
So, if I'm understanding this correctly, is the argument is that providing the user with a choice of library to link to, effectively "induces" the user to violate the GPL? I'm using the concept of inducement as a theory of contributory copyright liability, even though it wasn't a concept of law at the time that RMS and Bruno had this discussion. It feels like an inducement argument, though - the idea that telling your users to break the license is just the same thing as breaking the license. However, I don't think Bruno's argument hinges entirely on telling the user to break the GPL on his behalf. There is an API boundary, and in the time following this argument, people have written actual readline replacement wrappers that use BSD-licensed line-editing libraries (e.g. editline). The way I interpreted Bruno's argument was with the implication that he would actually reimplement readline instead of just, say, writing a functionality-free shim to induce the user to replace it with a functional but GPL'd library.
- d110af5ccf 6y ago
  Not a lawyer or anything, but ... Not inducement but rather intent. The question would be what the genuine intent of the author was behind the decision to so conveniently choose to place an API boundary right in that particular spot. The precise layout of the API also seems like it would be relevant - if no non-GPL libraries conforming to that particular API existed at the time of the decision, then what would the non-infringing justification be for choosing to implement that specific API in the first place? (Aside: In Google's case, IIUC the non-infringing justification is code portability. Also, there's the bit where they (re)implemented the entire system - I don't believe they were linking against or otherwise using anything owned by Sun. Other than the API layout itself ... allegedly.) Presumably questions about the decision making process itself, the technical merit of the final decision, and the state of any alternative implementations would all need to be considered.

kmeisthax 6y ago

So, if I'm understanding this correctly, is the argument is that providing the user with a choice of library to link to, effectively "induces" the user to violate the GPL? I'm using the concept of inducement as a theory of contributory copyright liability, even though it wasn't a concept of law at the time that RMS and Bruno had this discussion. It feels like an inducement argument, though - the idea that telling your users to break the license is just the same thing as breaking the license. However, I don't think Bruno's argument hinges entirely on telling the user to break the GPL on his behalf. There is an API boundary, and in the time following this argument, people have written actual readline replacement wrappers that use BSD-licensed line-editing libraries (e.g. editline). The way I interpreted Bruno's argument was with the implication that he would actually reimplement readline instead of just, say, writing a functionality-free shim to induce the user to replace it with a functional but GPL'd library.

d110af5ccf 6y ago
Not a lawyer or anything, but ... Not inducement but rather intent. The question would be what the genuine intent of the author was behind the decision to so conveniently choose to place an API boundary right in that particular spot. The precise layout of the API also seems like it would be relevant - if no non-GPL libraries conforming to that particular API existed at the time of the decision, then what would the non-infringing justification be for choosing to implement that specific API in the first place? (Aside: In Google's case, IIUC the non-infringing justification is code portability. Also, there's the bit where they (re)implemented the entire system - I don't believe they were linking against or otherwise using anything owned by Sun. Other than the API layout itself ... allegedly.) Presumably questions about the decision making process itself, the technical merit of the final decision, and the state of any alternative implementations would all need to be considered.