discuss: Problems with WWW-HOWTO
Subject:
Re: Problems with WWW-HOWTO
From:
Rahul Sundaram ####@####.####
Date:
22 Nov 2004 16:56:21 -0000
Message-Id: <20041122165553.6116.qmail@web8509.mail.in.yahoo.com>
--- David Lawyer ####@####.#### wrote:
> The "man" below is me.
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 04:57:59PM -0700, Rick Moen
> wrote:
> > Unfortunately, we have here a man who claims that
> GPLv2 is a contract,
>
> I searched on Google "gpl is a contract" and "gpl is
> not a contract".
> The score is that 271 say it's a contract, 225 say
> it's not. When I wrote
> that it was a contract, I didn't know much about the
> other point of view.
This is a absurd way to determine legal things.
Whether GPL is a license or a contract shouldnt and
cannot be determined by popular opinion. Ask a
qualified lawyer or atleast someone who has dealt with
licenses for opinion if you are unsure. Eben Moglen
who wrote the license has repeatedly claimed that it
is NOT a contract. I am pretty sure you can find FSF
and OSI laywers agreeing on this. Random people on
Google are not certainly qualified to determine this
>
> > that conventional open-source licences relinquish
> control of relicensing
> > to downstream recipients,
>
> The above isn't a quote of what I said. However,
> from the open-source
> definition:
> 3. Derived Works
>
> The license must allow modifications and derived
works, and must allow them to be distributed under
the same terms as the license of the original
software.
>
> The first phrase is quite clear: The license must
> allow modifications
> and derived works. But the second part of this
> phrase may not be
> clear to many readers. One might think it meant
> that people will be
> able to obtain a copy of a derived work under the
> same license.
> But it seems to only mean that a person who creates
> a derived work has
> the option of licensing it under the same terms as
> the original. Thus
> if the OSD-conformant license permits it, one could
> create a derived
> work and choose the option of licensing it under a
> license more
> restrictive than Microsoft's.
You should really discuss this in the OSI lists and
get yourself clarified.
>
> > who refers to licences as "copyrights",
>
> I haven't done this often. But from the context it
> should have been
> clear that I was actually referring to a license.
> It's common (but
> technically incorrect) to use the word copyright in
> this way. If people
> understand what you mean from the context, I think
> it's sometimes OK to
> use "copyright" incorrectly this way, since I think
> that the word
> "copyright" is more familiar to the public.
Again. Legal terms are not determined by popular
opinion or recoginition
Analogy: Public understands murder better than
homicide. The terms however cannot be interchanged
based on this.
>
> Rick Moen has previously quoted me out of context,
> and has resorted to
> unjustified ad hominem attacks on me, etc. I'm way
> behind on my email
> and one reason is Rick Moen's posts.
>
> David Lawyer
I havent really found any "attacks" on you by Rick
Moen or anybody for that matter in a personal way.
what has been however questioned in your claims on
licenses.
regards
Rahul Sundaram
=====
Regards
Rahul Sundaram
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today!
http://my.yahoo.com
