On Thu, 20 Dec 2001, Patrik Stridvall wrote:
Sure it is true that what people (read: companies) believe
is true is
more important than what really is true.
So, in fact, you indirctly agree that arguing about the doctrine of derived work as part of this discussion is irrelevant.
No, its not irrelevant because it will effect the advise the company lawyers give their clients.
You seem to wish to use ignorance (or uncertainty) as weapon to protect Wine, but know this: Ignorance (or uncertainty) cuts both ways.
Gav has said that Transgaming or for that matter Corel would have use Wine if it had been LGPL:ed. Perhaps this was because of ignorance, perhaps not.
Anyway even if you would be able to convince Gav that he was/is wrong, you must realize that Gav IIRC have researched legallity issues extensively so it is entirely likely that somebody else spending similar resources would come to the same, in your opinion wrong, conclusion.
In short: Ignorance (or uncertainty) is a dangerous weapon.
All you seem to be saying is that you think that the _spirit_ of the LGPL would be detrimental to Wine since it will drive companies away.
Right?
No. I have been trying to explain just because to are for the spirit of something it is not nessarily so that you support all possible means to acheive something and sometimes any acceptable means to acheive something might not exists.
Do you support the spirit of: "Peace on earth!"
Does it nessararily follow that you wish to accept any means to achieve this? Including, say, to be really extreme: "Nuke the middle east, then it will be peace there" and after enough nukes it probably WILL be peace, so it would be entire in line with peace on earth. Right?
On Thu, 20 Dec 2001, Patrik Stridvall wrote:
No, its not irrelevant because it will effect the advise the company lawyers give their clients.
But know you are inconsistent with yourself. You've been claiming that it is the very spirit of the LGPL that would scare companies away, and I can see some merit to that idea. You've also been claiming that the LGPL may not be enforceable, thus in mathematical terms, the expected value of the LGPL < the intended meaning of the LGPL it follow directly, that the more you are right, the less negative the advise of the lawyers.
So, if you 100% right, the LGPL would become BSD, and the lawyers would give the same advise, as for the BSD. If you are 100% wrong, then we do get the full protection of the LGPL, and we're happy. Anything in between is a linear combination of the two. In any case, there really is no point about bitching the doctrine of derived work. QED.
In fact, choosing the LGPL is a very nice way of hedging our bets agains future changes in copyright law. And this is so because of the negative feedback loop that the LGPL introduces agains the copyright law. Brilliant.
-- Dimi.
On Thu, 20 Dec 2001, Patrik Stridvall wrote:
Does it nessararily follow that you wish to accept any means to achieve this? Including, say, to be really extreme: "Nuke the middle east, then it will be peace there" and after enough nukes it probably WILL be peace, so it would be entire in line with peace on earth. Right?
Patrik, if you think licensing software under the LGPL is equivalent to nuking the middle east out of existence, you need to take a _deep_ breath, drink some cold water, and stay away from those pills.
Since we're here, this is the type of attitude that really destroys the credibility of much of your arguments. I mean, exagerations of the form: 'LGPL gives you nothing, it's a pile of crap' despite the enormous effort put in it by various lawyers and law professors from reputable universities, will not buy you many friends. Do you really think that the entire law establishment in the US has all gone mad and can't see the 'Gapping Hole' in the LGPL, and you were the chosen one to see it?
-- Dimi.
-
Dimitrie O. Paun -
Patrik Stridvall