Jumping the licensing shark

Posted May 3, 2023 17:09 UTC (Wed) by paulj (subscriber, #341)
In reply to: Jumping the licensing shark by paulj
Parent article: Jumping the licensing shark

More to the point, I am trying to understand the factual basis for your comment that McHardy deceived the GPL violator, as part of the first agreement.

(As is farnz I think).

Jumping the licensing shark

Posted May 3, 2023 18:40 UTC (Wed) by malmedal (subscriber, #56172) [Link] (3 responses)

Both of you are arguing in such a way that it looks like you really don't understand what the allegations actually are. So I am trying to explain that.
Whether the allegations are true or not is a different matter.

Jumping the licensing shark

Posted May 3, 2023 20:55 UTC (Wed) by farnz (subscriber, #17727) [Link] (2 responses)

I am posting based on the facts that have been given by the copyright infringer's lawyer in relation to the case, ignoring their framing of the issue.

I understand that the infringer might want to make it look like McHardy is the bad guy here, but if there's genuinely more to it than they've revealed so far, I'd like to see the facts, not just their claims - letters from McHardy, perhaps?

Jumping the licensing shark

Posted May 3, 2023 21:22 UTC (Wed) by malmedal (subscriber, #56172) [Link] (1 responses)

Why not ask him directly? If the allegations against him are unfounded I would like to know about it.

Jumping the licensing shark

Posted May 3, 2023 21:44 UTC (Wed) by farnz (subscriber, #17727) [Link]

I've sent him an enquiry by e-mail, but had no response. If you have his contact details, why not try yourself?