[Sussex] Big Legal News Regarding FLOSS Licences

[Nico Kadel-Garcia]

Geoffrey Teale wrote:
> On 14 Aug 2008, at 14:50, Steve Dobson wrote:
>
>   
>> Hi all
>>
>> Just saw this on Groklaw and it is *big*.
>>
>>  http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2008081313212422
>>     
>
>
>
> Interesting . in the US at least this gives the F/L/OSS licenses  
> parity with proprietary licenses (As I understand it).    The sensible  
> question you should all be asking is, "why wouldn't they have parity  
> in the first place?"  ... and the answer is complex but involves the  
> following:
>
>    - the difference between statute and precedent (and the lack of  
> either to cover F/L/OSS licenses)
>   
This doesn't seem correct. Many of the open source licenses were based 
on clear standards and precedent from older, closed source licenses and 
educational licenses, and several of the open source licenses have had 
fascinating legal challenges to set precedent. The NetGear/GPL license 
problem is an example where the existing statutes were deemed quite clear.
>    - that some legal entities (i.e. companies and individuals) found  
> it convenient to assume/claim that their was a disparity
>   
Oh, yes, indeed.

>    - that some other legal entities like to spread Fear, Uncertainty  
> and Doubt about all things F/L/OSS
About all things not done to their business model and profit, I suspect. 
It doesn't have to be F/L/OSS to have FUD spread about it.