Conversation
Notices
-
Bradley at the Software Freedom Conservancy explains GPL enforcement: http://ur1.ca/7yzx5
-
Much discussion on !Conservancy's !GPL enforcement w/ lots of misconceptions. Some clarifications: ur1.ca/7yzx5 ur1.ca/7z050 ur1.ca/7z055
-
@laforge (who appears to have deleted his identi.ca account) wrote a good !GPL enforcement blog post & I commented: http://ur1.ca/844xi
-
@bkuhn I didn' t understand what #MisterWelt was saying about requesting C&CS - did he mean "not make a serious legal demand"?
-
@bkuhn to clarify, I mean #MisterWelt talking about requesting C&CS for separate works from those on which he holds copyright
-
@bkuhn "copyright holders who enforce should approve all enforcement strategies" isn't that tautological?
-
"users ought demand freedom without © holder assent" @mlinksva hits bingo
-
@fontana, copyleft w/out enforcement is equivalent to a permissive license anyway. So I guess I don't see your point there.
-
@bkuhn I lurk on http://ur1.ca/5qn2t mailing list. All the people there complaining about noncompliance are non-copyright holders.
-
@fontana couldn't GPLv4 grant downstream users power to hire attorney for © enforcement on their upstreams representing © holder?
-
@fontana and require redistributors to recognize the legitimacy of the representation even if they failed to pass the license on?
-
I don't necessarily believe contractual remedies should be avoided. Brendan Scott doing interesting stuff w/ fraud law & !GPL in Australia.
-
@bkuhn You face a bit of a problem here having said repeatedly that downstream claims are somehow impossible
-