Re: LGPL reverse engineering clause & Java

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:

> Stefan Monnier wrote:
> [...]
>> Right, now I wish you good luck arguing this in court where the judges have
>> to *interpret* the law, which includes pesky details like "intent".
>
> The meaning and intent of the 17 USC 109 is quite clear. 
>
> "Discrimination against proprietary software" won't work under it.

Why not?  If I buy a car for the express and sole purpose of spiting
my neighbor, does that make it legal for him to steal it?

Because spiting is not explicitly protected by law?

Since when?

> <quote author=Stallman>
>
> In the GNU Project, discrimination against proprietary software is 
> not just a policy -- it's the principle and the purpose. Proprietary 
> software is fundamentally unjust and wrong, so when we have the 
> opportunity to place it at a disadvantage, that is a good thing.
>  
> The GNU Project policy, in GNOME as in the rest of the GNU Project, 
> is to release libraries under the GPL, except when there's a special 
> benefit *to our goal* from doing otherwise for some particular 
> library.
>
> </quote>

So the licence is chosen to benefit the goals of the licensor.  Well,
guess what, that's the same with proprietary licences.

It does not render them invalid, does it?

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum