ask for APSL? for real this time?
Andrew C. Greenberg
werdna at mucow.com
Fri Jan 9 23:53:12 UTC 2004
Goran, I can appreciate your frustration. I am not happy with the
advice I am giving either, but it is good advice.
Trust me in saying that I know of what I speak -- I am paid counsel for
various large open source projects and companies, and this is what I
do.
I appreciate you feeling that you don't care to respond, and I
acknowledge that my schedule is often too busy to give detailed advices
to repeated advancing of subject matter well-trodden here. If you are
suggesting something new, and I missed it, I apologize -- I am getting
ready for a trial resulting from IP neglect of the type we are
presently contemplating committing, and I am limited in the time I can
spend on this matter.
Whether you like me, the time i can afford to spend on this right now
or the advice i am giving, I think my record and passion for the
welfare of Squeak speaks for itself. My views are, at the very least
well-meaning. I hope you can take my remarks as such.
On Jan 9, 2004, at 11:30 AM, goran.krampe at bluefish.se wrote:
> Hi all.
>
> "Andrew C. Greenberg" <werdna at mucow.com> wrote:
>> To be clear. It is my conclusion (a considered view of a seasoned
>> intellectual property attorney) that plural licensing will kill the
>> project and make it absolutely impossible to make changes in the
>> future. Nothing I wrote here undercuts that conclusion. Please, for
>> G-d's sake, don't do it.
>
> Ok, I have no real hope of you actually responding to what I write -
> you
> don't seem to really bother, but I would like to quote one of your
> earlier posts in the matter:
>
> "I believe that we could survive with a communal understanding to
> release all of our code under Squeak-L, or a more liberal license, dual
> licensed with Squeak-L understanding that it gets viraled into Squeak-L
> when thrust into the image."
>
> I can only assume that you don't feel the same today then.
>
>> In the real world, you don't want technicians to make legal decisions
>> regarding the licensing of their code.
>
> This is the "open source" world where both companies AND individuals
> are
> authors.
> When an individual is the author, typically making something in his
> spare time, he will simply have to do as best he or she can. This isn't
> the corporate world Andrew, we are simply forced to make these
> decisions
> ourselves.
>
> I am the author of *my* code and I bloody well *will* decide how I
> license it.
>
>> Whether code is derived or not
>> is not a trivial issue, and certainly not a trivial issue if
>> litigation
>
> I would seriously hope that if I write an app in Squeak without
> touching
> the existing classes - just using them, then that app is clearly
> *according to Squeak-L* not a derived work of Squeak itself. If that is
> not so then PLEASE tell us, because I assume many of us would like to
> know that.
>
>> of any kind is implicated in a business decision. Having dual
>> licensing will yield little or no advantage, and may give rise to
>> later-insurmountable problems that could be resolved now if we
>> responded promptly.
>
> I think this is the last time I will ever bother to respond to you
> Andrew because I am so fed up with trying to discuss something with you
> when you only respond to pieces that you pick at your leisure, or
> simply
> not bother to respond at all.
>
> /Göran
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2361 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20040109/98230d5c/smime.bin
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|