About the calculus for the project
About the calculus for the project
Posted Feb 12, 2012 19:17 UTC (Sun) by khim (subscriber, #9252)In reply to: About the calculus for the project by armijn
Parent article: A tempest in a toybox
The license under which you develop you software has nothing to do with legality of such activity as I've already explained.
If this project is supposed to solve problem of GPL copyright violation in one way or another (or if it's created to solve some other problems, not related to licensing at all) - then it's good, lawful project. If it's goal is to conceal an infringement - then it's illegal.
Now, it's easy to claim "out goals are noble and if someone will use our work for unlawful purposes then it's not our problem", but this defense will fly only if statistic will support you. If most users of your project are using it to violate rights of someone else (for example Linux kernel developers) then you'll find yourself in a hot water no matter what you'll say. Napster is prime example - and law only becomes strict over time. ACTA is just the last step on this road - and I doubt it's the final one.
The real irony here lies in the fact that SONY which pushes this expansion in the capitol and SONY which tries to "solve" it using morally-questionable tricks like relicensed toybox are the same entity - yet the logical solution (stop trying to stretch power of copyright any further) is somehow not even considered.
Posted Feb 13, 2012 8:18 UTC (Mon)
by bronson (subscriber, #4806)
[Link]
That's obviously not its goal.
And, even if it were, it still wouldn't be illegal. If you disagree, please state your case law. Napster is only relevant as a trivial example of failing "significant non-infringing" and has nothing to do with software licensing.
Posted Feb 13, 2012 22:15 UTC (Mon)
by docwhat (guest, #40373)
[Link]
About the calculus for the project
About the calculus for the project