On 02/11/2016 05:25 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote: > I don't think the GPL example is a good one as it would be fair use to > create a license very similar to the GPL. If the GPL itself were CC > BY-SA, then the FSF could insist on derivatives *not* carrying the "GNU" > name anyway. Regardless, if someone wrote "Joe's GPL" that was different > but similar to the GNU GPL and had some of the same clauses, the FSF > would not sue them, and they probably would have total fair use > arguments, and everyone would just treat it as a new and different > license that was just similar to the GNU GPL.
Forgot to say that this already happened in at least one case, the Nethack GPL: http://www.nethack.org/common/license.html they clearly violated Richard Stallman's copyright here. Are you going to sue them or what? :)
