[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding
From: |
Alexander Terekhov |
Subject: |
Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding |
Date: |
Mon, 10 Jul 2006 18:30:32 +0200 |
Episode
Eben v. Congress (and half a dozen law professors)
"[Section: No more reliance on "derivative works"]
I will say, therefore, the second discussion draft of GPL3 will not
have any longer any dependency on the American copyright law idea of
a "derivative work". Accordingly we will be able to avoid another
fifteen years of complaining from lawyers who quite justifibly
thought that reliance on a US centric view of the derivative work
was a major source of uncertainty and uneasiness. They may think
that what we have done instead is not a perfect improvement, but I
feel certain that they will at least be the recognition that it's a
useful development.
[...]
(Q&A)
[...]
Q3: I have another question concerning the DRM clause. There is one
wording that says that covered software cannot be an effective measure
against... er in the sense of the DCMA. Do you expect this clause to
be effective?
I expect that US courts will be instructed on the intention of the
licensor to reject the features of DMCA as it applies to GPL
software. I expect the United States courts to listen closely to
statements of the licensor's intent, because under US copyright
law it is the licensor's intent which normatively determines the
content of licene.
[...]
Q7: How are you thinking about changing something in the title of the
section, I think it's 9, "not a contract", because that that's a bit
incompatible with the laws in some place, like in Brazil - I'm from
Brazil.
I firmly disagree with that position, but nonetheless we will do
something to meet these needs. I ultimately regard these believes as
narrow-minded and foolish, it belongs to half a dozen law professors
around the world, each of whom should check his cards again, and it's
all "he". They are people with gray hair and old minds. They're not
very old minds, because if in each of their legal systems they went
to their old legal dictionaries and looked at what the word license
means, or if they got real Roman about it and went and looked in the
Institutes of Justinian to find out what license means, they would
discover that a license is a unilateral permission, not an
obligation, and so what happens is that these minds that say these
thing, they're stuck in a little space, a thousand years after
Justinian and before the Second World War."
What a clown.
http://fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/barcelona-moglen-transcript.en.html
regards,
alexander.
- Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding,
Alexander Terekhov <=
- Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/07/10
- Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding, Jay Belanger, 2006/07/10
- Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/07/10
- Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/07/27
- Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/07/27
- Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- Linus' disillusionment, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/07/28
- Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- Linus' "pay me back in kind", Alexander Terekhov, 2006/07/28
- Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- Linus' "standing", Alexander Terekhov, 2006/07/28
- Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- Linus' "standing", Alfred M. Szmidt, 2006/07/28
- Message not available
- Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- Linus' "standing", David Kastrup, 2006/07/28