Am Wed, 19 Aug 2015 21:13:01 -0400 schrieb Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org>:
> So, who cares what they think? They don't get to write the law. When > Linus says stuff that is smart, I'll admire him for it. When he says > stuff that is dumb, I'm not afraid to say that the emperor has no > clothes. What do you think of the input the lawyers he went to gave him [0]: "Linus, however, believes that GPL-only exports are significant. I've talked to a lawyer or two, and (a) there's an absolutely _huge_ difference and (b) they liked it. The fact is, the law isn't a blind and mindless computer that takes what you say literally. Intent matters a LOT. And using the xxx_GPL() version to show that it's an internal interface is very meaningful indeed. One of the lawyers said that it was a much better approach than trying to make the license explain all the details - codifying the intention in the code itself is not only more flexible, but a lot less likely to be misunderstood." In the rest of the email [1] he writes: "I think both them said that anybody who were to change a xyz_GPL to the non-GPL one in order to use it with a non-GPL module would almost immediately fall under the "willful infringement" thing, and that it would make it MUCH easier to get triple damages and/or injunctions, since they clearly knew about it. I suspect programmers make horrible lawyers. They nitpick on details that sane humans don't. I think programmers often end up forgetting about the fact that human interactions don't work that way. Common sense makes a lot of difference, and DWIM is not just possible, but it's the only thing that matters. Linus" [0] https://lwn.net/Articles/154602/ [1] https://lwn.net/Articles/154603/ -- Marc Joliet -- "People who think they know everything really annoy those of us who know we don't" - Bjarne Stroustrup
pgpwUTjabqHlB.pgp
Description: Digitale Signatur von OpenPGP