Mail Archives: djgpp/2002/07/29/19:12:33
Followups to cold.apps, though this has become more of a legal discussion.
Alex Pavloff <BLAHapavloff AT BLAHeason DOT com> writes:
> >> Anyone got a "No Legalese" copy of [the LGPL]?
> >Such a thing cannot exist. Re-writing it in "simpler" language would just
> >be creating another similar license which might or might not have the same
> >effect. Just ask your lawyer to explain the LGPL to you. That's what you
> >would do with a commercial license you didn't understand, right?
> I've heard this "get a lawyer to explain it to you" from numerous
> people, but how many of you got a lawyer to explain it to you in the
> first place? Really?
It's an averages game. Nobody explained the LGPL to me, I read it
myself. As I'm not a lawyer, I may misunderstand it in certain
critical ways. But I'm betting that I understand it well enough to
abide by it, and further I'm betting that it's not cost-effective for
someone to take me to court over it.
But if my company were going to spend thousands or millions of dollars
on a product, you're damn right I'd get a lawyer to explain it to me.
More than that, I'd probably explain as much of the project as
possible to him so he could sort out any potential problems. It _is_
cost-effective for someone to take a big company with hundreds of
employees to court.
--
Eric McCoy (reverse "ten DOT xoc AT mpe", mail to "ctr2sprt" is filtered)
"Last I checked, it wasn't the power cord for the Clue Generator that
was sticking up your ass." - John Novak, rasfwrj
- Raw text -