[Sussex] Big Legal News Regarding FLOSS Licences

[Geoffrey Teale]

On 15 Aug 2008, at 09:57, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>>   - 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.

It's about a perceived difference in law though - the intent of the  
licenses has a different basis (though it uses the same legal  
constructs).  None of these three points stand alone, but when you add  
them together you get a picture of what has been happening.    
Specifically the notion that these licenses had to have separate  
legislation and precedent has been there for as long as I can remember  
- whether that is a valid point of view or not is largely irrelevant,  
whether a presiding judge believes it is far more relevant.

>
>>   - 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.

Indeed!
-- 
Geoffrey Teale
Software and Technology Consultant, München
tealeg at member.fsf.org