Software Freedom Law Center vs Theo de Raadt

An anonymous reader writes "In a recent public posting to the Linux Kernel mailing list the founder of the Software Freedom Law Center, Eben Moglen, lashed back at OpenBSD creator Theo de Raadt without actually mentioning his name. 'What has happened is that people who do not have full possession of the facts and have no legal expertise — people whom from the very beginning we have been trying to help — have made irresponsible charges and threatened lawsuits, thus slowing down our efforts to help them.' Moglen pointed out that they have and continue to help all open source projects, including OpenBSD, but the process takes time. 'The required work has been made more arduous because some people have chosen not to cooperate in good faith. But we will complete the work as soon as we can, and we will follow the community's practice of complete publication, so everyone can see all the evidence.'"

Comments

Re:It wasn't a derivative work

[Chandon Seldon]

That's an interesting legal opinion.

Are you a lawyer? If not, why are you providing legal advice?

If you have some BSD-licenced code that someone has relicenced under the GPL, feel free to sue them for slander of title or whatever so as to prove that your legal theory is correct. If you aren't a lawyer and haven't written any code then STFU. Seriously.

Re:It wasn't a derivative work

[Antony.Muss]

I hate GPL even more, because with each iteration Stallman and his cronies have successfully increased the number of limitations on the license. This is pretty stupid when you are trying to express free software that you will make so many god awful restrictions that basically inhibit projects more then it will ever help them.

GPL is about a philosophy of users having certain rights to the software they use. The latest GPL is consistent with that.

You know the reason why I won't release code under either the BSD license or GPL? Because there are zealots like you on both sides.

You won't release code under the GPL because you don't agree with its philosophy.

Re:It wasn't a derivative work

[Chandon Seldon]

So if you don't like what someone has to say you tell them "STFU"?

No. I say that when people make comments that cannot possibly help a debate. Legal opinions from non-lawyers about flamebait topics on Slashdot absolutely fall into that category.

That's the high quality of your debate, Chandon Seldon (43083)?

I'm not a lawyer either, so any opinion I might post would also fall into the same category (legal opinion, from a non lawyer, about a flamebait topic, on Slashdot). I'm pretty sure that what I posted was more productive than that could possibly be.

Sounds like an ad hominem personal attack on your part.

If a productive debate were possible, that would be a great comeback.

Let's just say that they were vetted by a lawyer...

So... who is this lawyer who approved your plan to paraphrase his comments as legal advice on Slashdot?

Re:IANAL, and I think you are missing the point

[Chandon Seldon]

Why do you dismiss someone's opinion out of hand in favor of someone who is a lawyer?

Because we're not going to have a productive debate about the law among non-lawyers on Slashdot. Especially not on a flamebait topic like this one. Normally I'd be 100% for a rational debate of the topic on its actual merits - but I've been reading Slashdot long enough to predict that that's not going to happen here.