sorted by: recent | see : popular

Content Tagged with License:GPL + law

>NY Timesの記事“Ruling Is a Victory for Supporters of Free Software”によると，アメリカ連邦巡回控訴裁判所は13日，Artistic Licenseの有効性を認め，ライセンスに違反して原ソフトウェアを改変し，商用ソフトウェアを作成した側の著作権侵害を認定する判決を出した(同裁判所による判決文)．一審判決は破棄され，審理は差し戻される．この判決文の中でライセンスを呼ぶのに“open source”という語が使われていること，またCCについても言及されていることから，レッシグ先生は"This is huge."とコメント．各自由ライセンスが設けている「条件」(conditions)を守らなければ，それはすなわちライセンスが破棄され，著作権侵害となる，というGPLやCCの理論が認められたとしている． …

"Unlike the lower court, the appeals court seemed to understand that reciprocity lay at the heart of free software licenses. Just as traditional software firms thrive on the exchange of code for money, free software projects thrive on the exchange of code for code."

Holy shit, we've got at least one sane court left.

Aaron Williamson

This seems bad.

Interesting thesis: licenses don't matter. Programmers like logical systems so they believe in licenses, but in reality social pressures and having lawyers matters more. So you have to worry more about the motivations of people and less about the words of

You know what this means? It means that those who claim the GPL isolates itself from standards bodies' IP pledges are wrong. It *is* possible to come up with<sep/>