On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 12:29:32PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> As part of that extended tirade he accused them of lying, in so many
> words. That is a very serious accusation which he didn't really back
> up. Under the circumstances I think at the very least he should have
> minced his words.
I've seen the video, and I very much disagree with Ian's
interpretation and characterizations of Linus's comments, in terms of
whether Linus was "mincing" his words, or "in so many words".
As far as the factual basis of the claims which Ian is referring to,
let me confirm that Eben Moglen was talking to multiple kernel
developers while trying to Linux kernel developers to change the
license of the Linux Kernel to GPLv3, a few months before the GPLv3
was finalized.
One such converation happened on a conference call between Eben and
the Linux Foundation Technical Advisory Board. I was on the call; as
I recall, so was Greg K-H, Andrew Morton, and half a dozen or so other
senior kernel developers. I remember several other private and
semi-private conversations involving Bradley Kuhn, Eben, and others at
various Linux conferences at the time. So this was certainly not
secret position of the FSF.
Eben's claim that the ability to use the "additional permissions"
clause was sufficient to address the kernel community's concern is
very quickly shot down using the same argument which Linus made. In
my opinion, Eben was "lawyering", which is to say, doing his job by
presenting his client's position in the most favorable light, even if
it severely twists the truth and belies common logic.
Whether this crosses the line into lying or is merely something which
is required by his obligations as a lawyer to "zealously advocating
his clients position", is something that is certainly in a grey zone.
It perhaps the basis of the old joke of "how do you know if a lawyer
is lying..."
In any case, this is why "in so many words" is critical. When Linus
said, "does he think I'm stupid?", that's quite consistent. Lawyers
very often are forced to make such statements which assume/hope that
the listener is stupid --- which you'll see for example in final
arguments in jury trials. That's their *job*.
Cheers,
- Ted
P.S. Nothing in this note should be considered private.
--
Please respect the privacy of this mailing list. Some posts may be declassified
3 years after posting as per http://www.debian.org/vote/2005/vote_002
Archive: file://master.debian.org/~debian/archive/debian-private/
To UNSUBSCRIBE, use the web form at <http://db.debian.org/>.
|
|
