|
|
Log in / Subscribe / Register

Principled free-software license enforcement

Principled free-software license enforcement

Posted Mar 2, 2017 14:55 UTC (Thu) by CycoJ (guest, #70454)
Parent article: Principled free-software license enforcement

It's quite ironic that the example of Twin Peaks vs Red Hat seems to violate at least 2 (and arguably even 3 or 4) of the Fontana's principles of when enforcement is justified.

Clearly using a countersuit for GPL violation in as a quick way to stop an original suit is for financial gain. The process is also completely opaque, so contradicts the demand for transparency.

I would also argue that this could contradicts the predictable and no conflict of interest points. It's easy to imagine a situation where knowledge of GPL violations becomes somewhat strategic and is kept secret to use as ammunition for possible countersuits.


to post comments

Principled free-software license enforcement

Posted Mar 2, 2017 16:13 UTC (Thu) by rfontana (subscriber, #52677) [Link]

It's not ironic - see my response to bkuhn's question at the talk. My point is that defensive GPL claims should not be held to the same standard as nondefensive ones because they don't raise the same kinds of policy concerns.


Copyright © 2026, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds