User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

How not to handle a licensing violation

How not to handle a licensing violation

Posted Apr 12, 2007 2:58 UTC (Thu) by k8to (subscriber, #15413)
In reply to: How not to handle a licensing violation by rfunk
Parent article: How not to handle a licensing violation

I like diplomacy. I think highlighting the importance of diplomacy is important. I read through the list, and the problem report _is_ diplomatic.

So while I agree with you, I'm pretty perplexed about how this particular issue brings about this particular discussion.


(Log in to post comments)

How not to handle a licensing violation

Posted Apr 12, 2007 7:12 UTC (Thu) by ekj (guest, #1524) [Link]

The message is diplomatic. Very even. They for exampel explicitly offer to let the BSD-developers have atleast some code under BSD-license.

"You copied my code in violation of the license, however if you talk to me I'm willing to relicense some of the code so that you can continue to use it." is very cooperative.

The *recipient-list* wasn't, however, very diplomatic. The same message sent only to the responsible developer would've been diplomatic. Escalating if you don't get a prompt positive reply from the developer would also have been fully justified.

This was also justified, but at the same time more alienating than it needed to be. BSD and GPL developers tend to share 90% - 95% of the goals afterall, so it's a pity getting into stupid figths over the remaining 5-10%

How not to handle a licensing violation

Posted Apr 12, 2007 8:03 UTC (Thu) by k8to (subscriber, #15413) [Link]

I rather think mailing the developer then after a day or so "escalating" it is more hostile. It suggests compliance is being demanded instead of simply informing the interested parties of the problem.

How not to handle a licensing violation

Posted Apr 12, 2007 13:13 UTC (Thu) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link]

That's your right, but expect to find yourself on the bad side of people who disagree with you, even if they're fully aware of your opinions. I for one would interpret you coming to me before going over my head as considerably less hostile. (I'd also expect you to wait for me to reply, rather than deciding that if I didn't break off my hospital stay, or pick your email up off the floor my ISP dropped it on, inside 24 hours to get you an acknowledgement, then I'm clearly not interested - but hey, perhaps I just have that annoying expectation of being treated like a human being.)

Also, the interpretation of the message as a demand for compliance anyway would seem to negate your point.

How not to handle a licensing violation

Posted Apr 12, 2007 16:57 UTC (Thu) by k8to (subscriber, #15413) [Link]

This all is absolutely correct, in the case that other parties are not being harmed with delay. In the case that they are, the small harm to the ego of the transgressing party is the lesser of two evils.

How not to handle a licensing violation

Posted Apr 12, 2007 20:04 UTC (Thu) by bfields (subscriber, #19510) [Link]

I'd also expect you to wait for me to reply, rather than deciding that if I didn't break off my hospital stay, or pick your email up off the floor my ISP dropped it on, inside 24 hours to get you an acknowledgement, then I'm clearly not interested

Personally, I hope that I never give anyone the impression that I'd be offended if they took care of urgent business for me while I was temporarily away. It's solving the problem that's the important thing--I don't see why I should care whether it's me that solves it or not.

How not to handle a licensing violation

Posted Apr 12, 2007 23:55 UTC (Thu) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link]

That's not what I said, is it? You're talking about going to a delegate; I'm talking about intepreting silence negatively.

So to put the orchard back: Would you be so happy if whoever went to someone else who could sort the problem out did so with the words "bfields stole our code on purpose, can you sort them out please?"? And that the someone else in question took the assertion at face value and sacked you?

How not to handle a licensing violation

Posted Apr 13, 2007 16:37 UTC (Fri) by bfields (subscriber, #19510) [Link]

That's not what I said, is it? You're talking about going to a delegate; I'm talking about intepreting silence negatively.

Well, you did say "I'd also expect you to wait for me to reply". That's not something I'd expect--if you have an urgent issue (and discovering that I was publicly distributing code with serious license issues would count), I'd definitely prefer that you go to whoever you need to (including people "over my head") to get the problem solved if I don't reply promptly, rather than wait some indefinite length of time with the problem unsolved.

Would you be so happy if whoever went to someone else who could sort the problem out did so with the words "bfields stole our code on purpose, can you sort them out please?"?

Why would I care?

Anyway, I don't see that in the original message; was that something that was said later in the flamewar?

And that the someone else in question took the assertion at face value and sacked you?

And here I'm totally lost. Was Marcus sacked? Who was taking anything at "face value"? What does this have to do with who problem reports should be addressed to?


Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds