Picking a license

[Patrick Maupin]

On May 12, 5:41 pm, Paul Boddie <p... at boddie.org.uk> wrote:
> > Ahh, well done.  You've sucked me into a meaningless side debate.  If
> > I'm not distributing readline, then legally the license distribution
> > terms don't apply to me.  End of story.  (Morally, now we might get
> > into how trivial it is or isn't.)
>
> According to the FSF, whose opinions you don't trust, it doesn't
> matter if you do distribute readline or not:
>
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LinkingWithGPLhttp://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfLibraryIsGPL
>
> From version 3 of the GPL:
>
> "For example, Corresponding Source includes interface definition files
> associated with source files for the work, and the source code for
> shared libraries and dynamically linked subprograms that the work is
> specifically designed to require, such as by intimate data
> communication or control flow between those subprograms and other
> parts of the work."
>
> You may beg to differ. I would advise against doing so in a courtroom.

Well, it's unlikely anybody will get a chance in a courtroom, because
nobody's going to bring suit.

>
> > But you don't need to know anything else.  RMS claimed clisp was a
> > derivative work of readline, even though readline wasn't even
> > distributed with clisp.  That's just plain copyright misuse, and if it
> > had gone to court with good lawyers, RMS might have lost the copyright
> > protections for readline.
>
> Now that *is* a ridiculous statement. Just because a decision is made
> that one work is not derived from another does not mean that the
> claimed original work is no longer subject to copyright.

Well, it won't come to court because the FSF is just going to posture
on this issue, but never really sue anybody (certainly not any open
source project), because they would lose both in court and in public
opinion.  But if they did decide to sue, a few prior cases like Sega v
Accolade and Galoob v Nintendo, as well as the court's use of the
abstraction, filtration and comparison tests to strip functionality
away from copyrightable subject matter, would probably be dispositive
in determining that a substantial program like clisp that didn't
include readline, but which could use readline, is not, in fact, a
derivative of readline.

Once the court reaches that conclusion, it would only be a tiny step
to find that the FSF's attempt to claim that clisp infringes the
readline copyright to be a misuse of that same readline copyright.
See, e.g. LaserComb v Reynolds, where the defendant (IMHO) acted much
more egregiously than anybody who is delivering free software like
clisp is acting, and nevertheless won on that issue.

Regards,
Pat