On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 9:40 PM, Richard Fontana
<fontana(a)sharpeleven.org> wrote:
Rather, it bothers me that there is this disconnect between a
fantasy
world in which a strong copyleft scope exists, the boundaries of which
are thought to be broad in some technical contexts but are implicitly
determinable only by experts (or courts that, it is thought, might
sometime in the next century or two provide some guidance on GPL
interpretation), and the real world where something rather different
is going on. That something is not the same as what is implied by
MPL-like copyleft, but it is something admittedly weaker than what
you'd conclude from the seemingly influential doctrine implied by the
writings of the FSF and some of its sympathizers on GPL
interpretation. I say seemingly because what I actually see is that
such doctrine has had its greatest influence on two groups:
risk-averse or risk-aversion-selling lawyers, and anti-GPL developers
(whose hostility to the GPL is, I think, rooted in a doctrinal
abhorrence of what they assume to be the 'virality' of the GPL
Thanks for articulating this, Richard. Well put.
Luis