> On Aug 28, 2019, at 11:54, Neil Van Dyke <n...@neilvandyke.org> wrote:
> If someone violates (their non-lawyer interpretation of) the Racket license, 
> in a conspicuous manner like you suggest, would they not expect the SFC to 
> send them a nastygram -- perhaps if only for the SFC to show that they defend 
> the copyright, if not for other reasons?

You don’t have any risk of losing a copyright just because you don’t choose to 
enforce it; you’re thinking of trademark law. If a copyright holder chooses not 
to pursue legal action against a violator, they may do so, and it does not in 
any way prevent them pursuing action against them or someone else in the future.

That said, your following sentence is absolutely right: it doesn’t matter if 
the Racket core team chooses not to enforce their copyright if they are not the 
exclusive copyright holders, and as I have already opined, I believe they are 
not. Any copyright holder may pursue legal action against violations of their 
copyright if they so choose, whether they are members of the Racket core team, 
the SFC, or independent Racket contributors.

On the other hand, if I were Joel, I probably wouldn’t be losing sleep over the 
potentiality of a Racket contributor taking me to court over my infringement. 
As I said previously, I don’t know how much Racket code is still exclusively 
licensed under the LGPL, but I’d bet the large majority is now licensed under 
the MIT and Apache licenses as well. Unless Joel starts making millions off his 
project and some contributors come out of the woodwork to try and get a piece 
of that action, I doubt his assessment is incorrect… and if that happens, well, 
he can probably afford to pay them enough to negotiate a license with them.

Still, a calculated risk is still a risk. YMMV, IANAL, and obviously this is 
not qualified legal advice.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Racket Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 

Reply via email to