[Chicago] Capistrano alternatives

[Ian Bicking]

Martin Maney wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 07:25:24PM -0600, Ian Bicking wrote:
>> Lawyers are bullshit.
> 
> Not half as bullshit as asking a bunch of non-lawyers for legal advice,
> which I was trying to avoid saying in so many words.  <wink>
> 
>> The ABSOLUTE WORST CASE is that the developers of Fabric will be
>> annoyed that you are using their code in a closed source system, and
>> they'll ask you to open your code or stop using Fabric.  If you are a
> 
> Are you the copyright owner of Fabric?  I truly have no idea.  If you
> aren't, this is, yes, in line with the usual outcome, but it's also
> just so much hot air if you cannot speak for them.

It's in line with all past disputes about GPL violations.  I don't know 
of any exceptions, I pay attention to such cases, and there really 
aren't that many disputes total around the GPL.  Given consistency among 
*all* past experiences, it's reasonable to make predictions about future 
risks.

Also, I'm far more capable of predicting how a developer will respond 
than most lawyers.  Perhaps because lawyers give proper lawyerly advice, 
which means they have to cover their butts, and I'm giving free, without 
warrantee, disinterested (well, somewhat disinterested) advice based on 
reasonable predictions of risk.

> I may have read too much into the OP's query - whether justified or
> not, I thought there might be commercial considerations involved
> (perhaps since he said he'd read the GPL, which so few bother to do).
> But I'm saddened to see you suggesting, apparently, that he should just
> do what he wants to and not worry about violating a license since it
> won't cost him much.  BTW, if he's invested a good deal of time and
> effort in setting things up using Fabric and has some compelling reason
> not to choose the "GPL everything" solution, then that cost could turn
> out not to be so small after all...

You *never* have to GPL everything in response to the GPL.  If you are 
distributing encumbered code to other people, you may have to 
disencumber it.  I suppose it's possible that the people receiving the 
code might actually force you to do so -- I haven't really heard of 
this, but that party would be more justified in asserting their rights 
than the Fabric license holders.  That party would probably be your 
paying customers, and so if you are giving them royalty-free rights to 
your code it wouldn't be a big deal anyway.

>> then you might also burn some social capital.  That's all you risk, and  
>> if you ask the Fabric people up front how they interpret the GPL then  
>> you don't even risk that.  Any other prediction is simply false.
> 
> That's a good point - a clear statement of how the copyright holders
> interpret the specific application would be a fine idea.  A good lawyer
> might have suggested this.

I've gotten weird pushback from lawyers that statements of my intent 
aren't meaningful compared the license itself (despite the LGPL and GPL 
often being unclear anyway).  I read this as bullshit, and it's made me 
wary of lawyers as good predictors of legal issues.  (If you ask me 
about my licensing, and I say I'm not going to sue you, what more do you 
need?)

>> Lawyers probably won't tell you this, which is why you shouldn't ask a  
>> lawyer.
> 
> Well, Sturgeon's Law, sure.  I guess it can be hard to find a *good*
> lawyer.  :-/

Which is why I think "ask a lawyer" is mostly stop energy, not really 
constructive.  It's just not going to happen, or if it does then the 
lawyer will just add more stop energy.  The law is *our* law, it doesn't 
belong to lawyers, and people shouldn't have to constantly defer to 
professionals.


-- 
Ian Bicking : ianb at colorstudy.com : http://blog.ianbicking.org