3 ms·

Your link [1] is FSF correcting a false representation of what they said: "In July of 2003, Slashdot published a story claiming that I had claimed that the LGPL

Your link [1] is FSF correcting a false representation of what they said: "In July of 2003, Slashdot published a story claiming that I had claimed that the LGPL did not function as intended in the case of Java. This story was based on a misunderstanding of a response to a question sent to licensing@gnu.org, and many attempts to clarify the issue in the Slashdot story did not get across. I have received numerous questions about the story since, via both licensing@gnu.org and personal email." It would not be complete without an explanation of why their posisition is correct, even if it is obvious to anyone who read the license.

suppressingfire 13y ago
The FSF is not a court of law. As such, their opinion on the interpretation of the license has no particular standing. It's helpful that they're the author of the license, and if it came down to it in court, it may be persuasive. But another lawyer might have a different opinion, so the question of how it will actually be interpreted if two parties disagree remains open and unsettled. Therefore, anyone undertaking to release a bit of open code should consider the range of interpretations when choosing the license. That's all that antoncohen was getting at, I think.
- belorn 13y ago
  > The FSF is not a court of law. As such, their opinion on the interpretation of the license has no particular standing. It's helpful that they're the author of the license, and if it came down to it in court, it may be persuasive. But another lawyer might have a different opinion... A key word there: "another lawyer". So sure, if there was another lawyer here who in their professional opinion will state a contradiction, then that is indeed something worth to consider. An non-lawyer however, has about the same qualification in defining ambiguousness in legal documents as a non-engineer has in defining faults in a nuclear reactor.

suppressingfire 13y ago

The FSF is not a court of law. As such, their opinion on the interpretation of the license has no particular standing. It's helpful that they're the author of the license, and if it came down to it in court, it may be persuasive. But another lawyer might have a different opinion, so the question of how it will actually be interpreted if two parties disagree remains open and unsettled. Therefore, anyone undertaking to release a bit of open code should consider the range of interpretations when choosing the license. That's all that antoncohen was getting at, I think.

belorn 13y ago
> The FSF is not a court of law. As such, their opinion on the interpretation of the license has no particular standing. It's helpful that they're the author of the license, and if it came down to it in court, it may be persuasive. But another lawyer might have a different opinion... A key word there: "another lawyer". So sure, if there was another lawyer here who in their professional opinion will state a contradiction, then that is indeed something worth to consider. An non-lawyer however, has about the same qualification in defining ambiguousness in legal documents as a non-engineer has in defining faults in a nuclear reactor.