FDL again, was: My concerns about GPLv3 process
Alfred M. Szmidt
ams at gnu.org
Mon Feb 13 20:03:01 UTC 2006
> None of what Alessandro described is harmful, it is explcitly
> allowed by the license. You are claiming that there are problems
> when there are none, it is like having people claiming that the
> GPL has problems by disallowing a GPLed project being converted
> into a non-free program.
I must say the analogy is completely wrong, and, I'm sorry, almost
Care to explain why?
> If you wish to have a way to enforce the copyright, then you will
> need to have copyright papers. Otherwise, you cannot enforce it
> at all, it really doesn't matter what license you are using. A
> judge would love to hear "Sorry your Honour, but I couldn't
> gather the copyright holders to actually sue the accused'.
I do not think a judge would love that, probably an evil lawyer
from the other side, but not the judge. I think the judge would
actually like to judge facts not handle formalities.
The judge would infact throw the case out. Only the copyright holder
can sue for infrigment.
> In theory, anyone can go and make Linux a non-free program, since
> it is simply impossible to enforce the license there.
In practice I think this shows up to be false, otherwise it would
have already happened, don't you think SCO would have already done
that otherwise for example ?
It has happened, and it is continuing to happen. Usually it is easily
More information about the Discussion