On Sun, 2006-02-12 at 13:47 +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: > 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 specious here. > 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. > This is a misconception you, and others have shown repatedly when it > comes to copyleft, that unless you have a single copyright holder (or > a very small number), it is impractible to enforce the license. And > if you cannot enforce the license, the license looses its charm. > > 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 ? Simo. _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
