On 17 Apr 2011 16:52:12 +0300, Nadav Har'El wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 17, 2011, Mikhael Goikhman wrote about "Re: Fwd: A Weird > Interpretation of the GPL": > >... > > It is wrong thus to call this vision as "interpetation of a license". > > Your whole argument is wrongly based and void. It is astonishing that > > you still continue with it, even after several years. > > > > Please don't use the screwed logic. The GPL is Free Software. > > The NMAP developers interpret the Copyright Law, not the license. > >.. > > While I generally agree with you, you should also remember that > courts only act on cases that are brought before them. So if your > use of a certain GPLed code is according to company X's > "interpretation" of why they used the GPL, they won't sue you, but > if your use of company Y's code is against their "interpretation", > they *can* sue you - and if their lawyers is good enough, and the > law is ambiguous enough on the matter - they can win. > > So sometimes, it's wiser to listen to how companies "interpret" > your rights on the code they release, and obey these > interpretations, rather than what you believe to be the letter of > the law and the GPL. It doesn't really matter if the > "interpretation" reinterprets basic copyright law or the text of > the license - in either case, you might be wise to adhere to it.
I intentionally didn't express any opinion on whether the NMAP clarifications about the applicability of the license are common sense or not (i.e. will be taken in account by the court or not). Just pointed that these clarifications are mere interpretations of the copyright law applied to software and not of the license. This is to show logical and factual errors in the endless anti-GPL campaign lead by Shlomi. Regards, Mikhael. _______________________________________________ Discussions mailing list Discussions@hamakor.org.il http://hamakor.org.il/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discussions
