Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by velcrovan 2613 days ago
Again, he has said his argument is specific to the SIL OFL and not any other license. The GPL/FSF stuff does not apply to this discussion.

Not sure how he is supposed to have addressed the "lotsa government lawyers think different" argument when no one in that thread has raised it, let alone provided any evidence of it. And again, for it to be relevant, these government lawyer opinions would need to be talking about the OFL specifically.
1 comments
acdha 2612 days ago
> Again, he has said his argument is specific to the SIL OFL and not any other license. The GPL/FSF stuff does not apply to this discussion.

His claim comes down to the U.S. government not being able to use any license which relies on copyright claims, which is not unique to OFL. This is why the government lawyers question is relevant: if he's right, that means that a bunch of other contributions shouldn't have been allowed unless the projects are public domain or dual-licensed.

link
velcrovan 2612 days ago
> His claim comes down to the U.S. government not being able to use any license which relies on copyright claims

You haven't read his claim then, he explicitly isn't saying that. He claims only that the government can't use the OFL because of the specific demands made by the OFL which the government can't satisfy. FSF licenses don't mind public domain contributions, the same is not true of the OFL.

link
acdha 2612 days ago
Please don't accuse people of not having read something because you don't agree with them.
link