| |||||||||||
OLS: Enforcing the GPLOLS: Enforcing the GPLPosted Jul 26, 2004 4:14 UTC (Mon) by stock (subscriber, #5849)Parent article: OLS: Enforcing the GPL
Do not become a Darl Mcbride of GPL-ed software. Smacking many commercial
(Log in to post comments)
OLS: Enforcing the GPL Posted Jul 26, 2004 9:46 UTC (Mon) by piman (subscriber, #8957) [Link] These companies are distributing to end-users! Linux and netfilter are installed in all sorts of proprietary firewall products, with no offer of source. This means people wanting to hack the firewalls to do more stuff, can't. Any security holes, they're stuck with; any outright stupid design, they're stuck with; and bugs, they're stuck with those too."Real" violations of the GPL happen when someone violates the terms of the GPL, which these companies are doing. I don't know what you think "fake" violations of the GPL are. What does the FSF have to do with software they have no copyright on? Why should all legal requests involving GPLd software have to go through the FSF?
OLS: Enforcing the GPL Posted Jul 26, 2004 14:27 UTC (Mon) by greve (subscriber, #8385) [Link] The Free Software Foundations have the longest-standing experience in dealing with the GNU (Lesser) General Public License in terms of writing it, maintaining it and enforcing it.They are also the most aware party in terms of global legal implications and the political/tactical situation. So if you want the best for GNU GPL and the Free Software licensed under it, you definitely want to involve one of the FSFs.
OLS: Enforcing the GPL Posted Jul 26, 2004 15:11 UTC (Mon) by piman (subscriber, #8957) [Link] > The Free Software Foundations have the longest-standing experience in dealing with the GNU (Lesser) General Public License in terms of writing it, maintaining it and enforcing it.The Free Software Foundation has the longest standing experience in dealing with infringements on their own copyright. They are not general GPL enforcers; they do not have the time, resources, or interest in that. > They are also the most aware party in terms of global legal implications and the political/tactical situation. I doubt that. Debian probably has much more experience with global legal implications of various licenses. I'm not sure what you mean by "political/tactical situation" -- are you trying to imply that RMS good at handing delicate situations? > So if you want the best for GNU GPL and the Free Software licensed under it, you definitely want to involve one of the FSFs. The FSF have already shown themselves untrustworthy with their continued pushing of non-free licenses like the GNU FDL. If I want the best for my GPLd software, I will pursue my methods of dealing with infringement, that do not involve an irrelevant third party like the FSF.
OLS: Enforcing the GPL Posted Jul 26, 2004 17:24 UTC (Mon) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] The folks on debian-legal are a bunch of amateurs. Eben Moglen, who does the enforcement for the FSF, is a law professor at Columbia University whose specialties are copyright law (as represented both in US law and in international treaties like the Berne Convention) as well as legal history. Now that FSF Europe exists, the FSF has considerable European expertise on tap as well. Debian people who are not lawyers should not assume that they know their own country's copyright laws better than Prof. Moglen does. It is arguable that the FSF's approach to GPL enforcement is too quiet, but before deciding that I suggest that you read about it.
OLS: Enforcing the GPL Posted Jul 26, 2004 18:40 UTC (Mon) by piman (subscriber, #8957) [Link] The folks on debian-legal may be "amateurs" (some are in law school), but I would wager that they have read and dissected more copyright licenses than Prof. Moglen. And please read my message in the context of parent poster. I don't mean to insult Prof. Moglen in any way at all, I think he's a genius. But to suggest that he has the time to look into every possible infringement of the GPL is absurd; and other FSF members are also an amateurs, with much less experience than debian-legal. licensing@gnu.org isn't a direct line to a lawyer; it gets you Dave Turner. He's a smart guy, but his situation is almost exactly that of debian-legal, just less breadth. For the grandparent's idea to be implemented, the FSF would need dozens of real lawyers.That FSF Europe exists does not give the FSF any European copyright expertise by fiat. Who works for FSFE that has the kind of experience Prof. Moglen does? Or, more likely, are there just a few "amateurs" -- good at what they do, but still with little breadth of experience in licensing, and little or no legal training. I'm familiar with the FSF's approach to GPL enforcement. Good, if it works for them. It didn't work for Harald, and what he's doing now does.
OLS: Enforcing the GPL Posted Jul 28, 2004 8:57 UTC (Wed) by pm101 (subscriber, #3011) [Link] >I doubt that. Debian probably has much more experience with global legal>implications of various licenses. I'm not sure what you mean by Eben is one of the top law professors in copyright law in the nation. He specializes in copyright. He's brilliant. I understand debian-legal has law students. Nevertheless, there's a bit of a gap between a law student and a famous law professor. >"political/tactical situation" -- are you trying to imply that RMS good at I don't see why this matters, or should even be brought up. RMS is head of the FSF, and he's a very smart guy. He knows he's not good at some things, and very good at others, and he knows how to delegate. RMS isn't the best person to negotiate a delicate situation, but Eben is. Eben is brilliant at this sort of thing, and he's the FSF's lawyer, so he handles it. >The Free Software Foundation has the longest standing experience in dealing Actually, they are. You assign them the copyright (so they have the legal standing to deal with it), and they will deal with it. In general, the FSF has been very prompt at responding to me in the past (e-mails to RMS or Eben get a response in 24 hours, usually). >The FSF have already shown themselves untrustworthy with their continued >pushing of non-free licenses like the GNU FDL. If I want the best for my >GPLd software, I will pursue my methods of dealing with infringement, that >do not involve an irrelevant third party like the FSF. Fair. Your choice. Many people don't have the time and money to do this. If you do, more power to you. No reason to bash the FSF.
OLS: Enforcing the GPL Posted Jul 26, 2004 18:53 UTC (Mon) by dvdeug (subscriber, #10998) [Link] Darl McBride is making vague claims over software he didn't create, and suing over it. We're making specific claims over software we did create; we are in the right to be doing this.
OLS: Enforcing the GPL Posted Jul 28, 2004 4:10 UTC (Wed) by stock (subscriber, #5849) [Link] Darl McBride is making vague claims over software he didn't create, and suing over it. We're making specific claims over software we did create; we are in the right to be doing this.I use Darl McBride as role model example here. Everyone in the Linux/FOSS camp hates this guy. Don't become the most hated GPL law-enforcer in a total insane GPL software abuse witch-hunt, is what i ment to say. It will earn you some cash (remains to be seen) but be carefull not to earn global hatred too. Don't send your seize and desist GPL-enforcement letter to any software company which you know to exist. Only come in action when known _proof_ of GPL abuse does exist. Robert
OLS: Enforcing the GPL Posted Jul 28, 2004 7:50 UTC (Wed) by piman (subscriber, #8957) [Link] No one is doing that. All the cases pursued are clear violations of the GPL. Money be damned, I want free code.
|
|||||||||||