Jumping the licensing shark

Posted May 3, 2023 17:40 UTC (Wed) by malmedal (subscriber, #56172)
In reply to: Jumping the licensing shark by paulj
Parent article: Jumping the licensing shark

I do not see any reason to assume a scenario involving any sort of code-removal. Why would McHardy ask for it? It would be expensive for the company to comply for no benefit. It would mean harder negotiations for the money. And if they weren't asked, why would the company do it?

Jumping the licensing shark

Posted May 3, 2023 18:36 UTC (Wed) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]

I never posited any scenario where McHardy asked for removal. I'm not sure where you got that.

The claim made by others is that on the /subsequent/ violations, that McHardy did not have code in whatever software it was that was at issue. Whether that was because the company concerned removed it, or whether it was because the kernel community had rewritten the code to remove anything associated with McHardy, I do not know.

The claim by some here seems to be that the deceptiveness was that McHardy claimed to be a copyright holder when he was not. I have not seen evidence that this is true.

As far as I can tell it is accepted that McHardy had a copyright interest in the earlier violations. Or at least, that there was a good chance.