Re: Microsoft needs a help strategy

[amicus_curious]

"ZnU" <znu@fake.invalid> wrote in message 
znu-CA4059.21152628012009@news.individual.net">news:znu-CA4059.21152628012009@news.individual.net...
> This argument would be persuasive if judges were the legal equivalent of
> strictly-validating XML parsers, required to reject entire documents if
> portions of them were invalid). But this is not, in fact, the case.
>
> While I don't consider this outcome particularly likely, there is
> absolutely no reason why a judge couldn't, in principle, find that GPL
> validly granted permission to redistribute, but that (say) the provision
> requiring code disclosure for derivative works was invalid.
The JMRI case seems to have framed this issue in an environment where the 
parties seem moved to fight it out to a conclusion.  Although the software 
is not GPL, I think that it only differs in degree of demand on the 
licensee.  It should go a long way in resolving the issues in the GPL.