[Axiom-legal] Re: GPL vs. modified BSD

[root]

> > > Just curious: What _exactly_ would forbid to distribute Axiom under GPL?
> > 
> > Nothing. 
> > 
> > The Modified BSD allows anyone to do this.
> 
> On the other hand the side-effect would likely be a fork in the axiom
> project. I've seen discussions for and against going GPL. I argued for
> GPL before axiom was released but accepted the MBSD as a reasonable license.
> 
> Consider that the real point of licensing is that you can sue people
> who violate the license and that the point of bringing suit is to
> get money (ask any lawyer... I have) you'll see that axiom's license
> is uninteresting. Any lawyer worth his $250/hour will tell you that
> you don't sue people "on principle". Such suits are considered "harassing"
> and are generally thrown out. Threatening to bring such suits without
> actually following up is called barristry and is grounds for being sued.
> 
> After 6 years, endless debate, several books, and a few conversations
> with actual lawyers I'm completely disgusted with the whole debate.
> It is unproductive in the extreme. That's why axiom-legal exists.

Oh, and another point of fact... In order to bring a suit you have to 
have "standing" and you have to show actual damages. Thus you can't
just march off to court without showing that your suit has "merit"
and that you believe you can win. Doing so will get you a court fine
and open you to counter-suit. This is why you can't sue Microsoft.

A suit against an open software project for mixing GPL and MBSD code
is unlikely to cause "actual damages" and since you are not directly
impacted financially you're unlikely to have "standing". Further since
the MBSD requires you to hold NAG free from responsibility you can't
sue them. And since no-one owns axiom (I certainly don't) there isn't
an organization to sue and there can be no monetary gain. No lawyer
is going to take the case and no judge is going to hear the case.

Since the MBSD and the GPL are "spiritual sisters", differing in details
only a lawyer knows, it is unlikely to be a point of legal debate. Both
fulfill the spirit of the GPL.

It will, however, be a point of religious debate. Software people
think they can read a license and understand what it means, what
it implies, and how it will be interpreted by the courts. That's
like giving a C++  program to a lawyer, asking them to read it,
understand it, and state how it will be interpreted on an
unspecified machine running some unknown operating system.

Law terms do NOT mean what laymen think they mean. I can tell you from
experience because I consulted a lawyer about my employment contract
and got a great lesson in humility. It's not about intelligence, it's
about education in the field.

Without legal advice debating the issue of single or dual licensing of
axiom under the GPL vs MBSD is an argument about the number of angels
that can dance on the head of a pin. All religion and no facts.  Facts
cite case law. I'm clearly not capable of citing case law with authority.

So my view is that either we hire a lawyer (don't look to me for a
donation) or we simply agree not to debate things we don't understand.



Tim