I am pretty convinced this thread isn't useful anymore. We all know you're against GPL enforcement, Felipe.
Felipe Contreras wrote at 10:37 (EDT) on Monday: > I might be complying with it to the letter, but somebody in another > team might not be, and I might suffer. To my knowledge, at least in the USA, individuals generally don't "suffer" rights termination because of violations by their company. Frankly, I presume you'd do better to turn you attention to Red Hat, who is now publicly doing GPL enforcement as well, against TwinPeaks, on a program for which they don't hold 100% copyright (mount in linux-utils). Red Hat is asking in court for the same things that Conservancy asks for in its enforcement, but Red Hat is much more wealthy and powerful than Conservancy, so the danger they do something that bothers you is much greater. I remind you that Conservancy has never caused the "nightmare scenarios" that you keep proposing, thus an argument that Conservancy might do it are just as likely if you s/Conservancy/Red Hat/g. > If this 1% wants to be protected, that's their choice, but I wouldn't > say "Linux wants enforcement"; that is an exaggeration, in fact it's > only a very small fraction of it. I have met at most 5 Linux copyright holders who actively oppose enforcement; I've met hundreds who say to me privately "thank you for doing what you're doing" and dozens who have signed up Conservancy's GPL Compliance Program for Linux Developers. I noted already elsewhere in the thread the fact that Linus told me personally that he wants each Linux copyright holder to make his/her own decisions about enforcement. It's Linus' policy, and he leads the project, and decides whose patches make it into the canonical version that companies use. Take up your issue with him if you aren't happy that some people chose to enforce the license. -- -- bkuhn _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
