Re: softwarecombinations paper again Re: LGPL vs. GPL

[Tim Smith]

In article <MwKkk.7$wT3.1@fe089.usenetserver.com>,
 Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> wrote:

> Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
> > I did.  It's drivel.  Next.
> > [Well, I skimmed it, but it was quickly obvious that
>  > a skim is all it deserved.]
...
> I don't see why it would be considered "drivel". I expect that

O'Riordan says he skimmed it.  The only way anyone can skim a paper of 
this nature and get any meaningful understanding of it is if they are an 
expert in copyright law.  O'Riordan is not an expert in copyright law.  

As is typical in legal writing, nearly everything important in the paper 
is backed with cites.  To determine that a paper is "drivel", you have 
to chase down the cites.

> the GPL would fare pretty well in court these days, because on
> its side it has the enormous success of Linux and the various
> vendors who are happily distributing GPLed code and making money,
> but you never know.

What does the success of Linux have to do with whether using different 
pieces of software in combination in various ways involves the 
derivative work preparation right?

-- 
--Tim Smith