On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 9:47 AM, Bradley M. Kuhn <[email protected]> wrote: > Felipe Contreras wrote at 11:55 (CEST) on Thursday: >> I'm only interested in Linux enforcement. > > The enforcement I mentioned by Red Hat was indeed Linux enforcement. > >> On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Bradley M. Kuhn <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> 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. > >> That's nice, but that wouldn't calm any lawyer. > > Upon reading that, I'm left wondering how many lawyers you've met. I've > met hundreds of lawyers, including nearly all of them who specialize in > Open Source licensing. I'd say that nearly all of them are calmed when > they hear a statement like the one above.
Maybe you need to meet more corporate lawyers, specially of big companies. >> I have never suggested that the policy should be changed, I merely >> pointed to the policy, and it's precisely what I said; each copyright >> holder decides, so it would be unfair to say that Linux as a project >> is seeking enforcement, when it's fact it's only selected individuals. > >> It would be nice to see the list of individuals, > > Because of people who attack so aggressively those of us who do > enforcement -- as we've seen on this thread -- most of the Linux > copyright holders involved have asked to remain anonymous. Shocking. I've yet to see a singe "attack" on any Linux kernel developer--or any developer-- asking for enforcement. -- Felipe Contreras _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
