[xsd-users] License and Portability

[Benjamin Schindler]

Peter,

On 07/07/2011 12:17 PM, Peter Backes wrote:
> Benjamin,
> 
> On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 12:36:13PM +0200, Benjamin Schindler wrote:
>> Peter, are you a lawyer? If not, well you better consult one, because
>> then in the end all you are doing is hand-waving because you are in no
>> position to make an informed statement. Legalese is difficult.
> 
> This is an argument from authority, and such arguments are always 
> invalid. Just because I am not a lawyer does not mean that what I say 
> is wrong. I may be wrong, sure. But such an argument from authority 
> doesn't do anything to substantiate the claim *that* I am wrong.

Reread what I said - I never said you're wrong. I said you are not in a
position to make an informed statement and you just confirmed this by
saying "I may be wrong".

> 
>> I'm sure Boris has consulted the FSF over this matter so he is probably
>> in a good position.
> 
> This is arguing with mere possibilities. Has Boris consulted the FSF?  
> I have often discussed with the FSF, and usually they offer much better 
> solutions than those used for XSD. Maybe the FSF said the XSD way faces 
> no major problems (after all, XSD is uncontroversially Free Software), 
> but from my impression, they wouldn't endorse or recommend such a 
> soltuion.
> 
>> Boris has decided to put the generated code under the GPL. So the only
>> way to challenge this is consulting a lawyer/the FSF.
> 
> No, the way I am challenging it, by arguments, is the only way.  If a 
> lawyer or the FSF can challenge this claim then by using valid 
> arguments, and it is the fact that these arguments are valid, not that 
> they come from FSF/lawyer, that gives them power.  They may have 
> better, different arguments and/or disagree with what I say, but this 
> is by no means a neccessity.

Yes, you tried and failed. Boris does not intend to change the license
of the generated code. So the only option you have is to force him
change it by means of going to court. Or you just ignore it and wait for
him to sue you. But if you loose, you have a big problem

> 
> And many of my arguments are independent from legal questions, for 
> example that copyright on generated code is better disclaimed than 
> claimed, that copyright on the header library is sufficient to do what 
> Boris wants to achieve, and that the FLOSSE should better be replaced 
> by something that tries not to be more clever than neccessary.

You're mixing "independent from legal" and copyright in one sentence?
This is ridiculous. We're dealing with copyright so it's by definition a
legal matter.
I cannot tell whether the way Boris deals with it is the best way. But
he has made a decision and doesn't seem willing to change this. So
please just accept that?

Cheers
Benjamin

> 
> Regards
> Peter
>