| |||||||||||||
It's not misconceptions - it's just omitted stepIt's not misconceptions - it's just omitted stepPosted Oct 9, 2008 4:24 UTC (Thu) by lysse (guest, #3190)In reply to: It's not misconceptions - it's just omitted step by khim Parent article: Plugging into GCC 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.
(Log in to post comments)
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.
|
|||||||||||||