| |||||||||||||
It's not misconceptions - it's just omitted stepIt's not misconceptions - it's just omitted stepPosted Oct 5, 2008 7:28 UTC (Sun) by khim (subscriber, #9252)In reply to: Common misconception by gmaxwell Parent article: Plugging into GCC
The misunderstanding comes from skipping straight to (2) without first considering (1). May be some people (like drag above) have this misconception, but people actually involved (RMS and FSF) surely don't. They see nVidia, they see Broadcom and ask "how can we prevent THIS?" and "should we actually try to prevent THIS?". And yes - this IS about case where plugins developer does not distribute GCC itself... Sorry, but you are coming from wrong side. You are cosidring what is
convenient (of course distribution of proprietary plugin with GCC is more
convinient then distribution without GCC) and then think about
copyrights. The makers of proprietary plugins come from different side: Think about Microsoft/Novell deal: how proud Microsoft was when their lawers found the loophole which allowed them to sign a deal which was supposed to be prevented by GPL! It's security - you should always think about the "weak part"...
(Log in to post comments)
It's not misconceptions - it's just omitted step Posted Oct 6, 2008 1:59 UTC (Mon) by gmaxwell (subscriber, #30048) [Link]
I guess I should have named names: I was speaking of some of the upthread posters (and similar comments on past threads), and *not* the FSF. Obviously the FSF knows what they are doing here (see my post way up at the top).
It's not misconceptions - it's just omitted step Posted Oct 9, 2008 4:24 UTC (Thu) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link] Can everyone who is not an experienced copyright lawyer please refrain from jumping up and down and loudly insisting that they know what the legal position is? You might have an opinion about what the legal position should be; that's fine - but to claim any more than that without the appropriate expertise overreaches.
Experienced copyright lawyer? Who's that? Why he's infallible? Posted Oct 9, 2008 7:49 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] The fact is: "experienced copyright lawyers" often are wrong when they discuss copyright licenses too. They just prepend every sentence with "this is my opinion, if you want legal advice I'll need more detail" so their mistakes are overlooked. The only entity which can know the legal position is Supreme Court (by definition) - and then the relevant position will be true only in one country. And it'll be entirely too silly to just go in dark because we can not get supreme courts opinions on the GCC plugins matter. To even approach something resembling legal position you need understanding of both copyright and technology (think SCO: do you think they prepared their insane legal theories without help of copyright lawers?) - and such people are rare and not all of them have lawers degree. Thankfully one of them is working on the case and I hope soon we'll get something "official"...
Experienced copyright lawyer? Who's that? Why he's infallible? Posted Oct 9, 2008 13:38 UTC (Thu) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link]
> The fact is: "experienced copyright lawyers" often are wrong
> when they discuss copyright licenses too.
But cluefulness is not binary, and they have rather more than you do.
|
|||||||||||||