| |||||||||||||
Questions that need answeringQuestions that need answeringPosted Dec 6, 2006 19:19 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252)In reply to: Questions that need answering by NigelK Parent article: Of hypocrisy and the FSF (Libervis)
The programmers of the GNU projects give the FSF their copyrights partially on the understanding that the FSF will step up to the plate when someone infringes the GPL when using that code. True - and so far results were pretty satisfactory. FSF enforced GPL a lot of time. They don't use public performances for this - it's their choice. It's often not a good idea to use this approach - instead of compliance and future friends you'll generate bunch of sore losers. If the FSF doesn't act against Microsoft and Novell (redrafting the GPL3 doesn't count), then what good does giving them code copyrights do? They are not blowing their months off - but how do you know they are not acting ? AFAIK right now they can not sue Novell, but may be they can sue Novell customers. It depends on exact details of Microsoft/Novell agreement. There are remote possibility that it's not really possible at all. Copyright (granted to FSF) is potent veapon but absolute it's not.
(Log in to post comments)
|
|||||||||||||