> > I have gotten more of an insight on this issue and I > have to say that > > although you have many good points, Les has very good > points as well. > > I have gotten some input regarding issues with GPL. > ... > > /* name withheld to protect the identity of this > previous GPL author > > */ > > You mean someone *other* than Les? Yes :) > > > As a GPL developer, he tried to sue some GPL violators > and found that > > you cannot succeed. The majority of GPL violations > is/was done by > > small companies that cannot be threaten by forbidding > them to sell > > their products that are based on the violation. > > That's exactly what copyright law offers. If someone > is distributing > your software in violation of the license, the court can > order them to > stop distribution. The GPL, specifically, will also > terminate their > rights to distribute as a result of their violation. If > they want to > continue to distribute the software, they must negotiate > with the > copyright holder to restore that right. > > > As you in general cannot sue people for GPL > violations, why should we > > add restrictions to software that just hit the users > but not the > > abusers? > > That is a ridiculous assertion that has no foundation. The > GPL does not > "hit" users in any way. They don't even have > to accept its terms unless > they want to distribute the software. > > If the GPL were ineffective against abusers, then it > wouldn't affect > anyone at all. Portraying users as innocent victims of the > GPL is an > outright lie. > > > The logical result from this question is to put > software under a > > license that does not restrict collaboration in the > OpenSource area > > (like the GPL unfortunately does). > > That result is also illogical. If your supposed GPL > developer couldn't > enforce the GPL against companies that violated its terms, > then I don't > see any reason to believe that he could enforce any other > license, > either. He might as well put his software in the public > domain and > ignore licenses completely. Here's an example of a case that the GPL has not helped the original author http://www.linux.com/feature/57131 The case is still pending :(, but pretty much the abusers or bad guys can get away with a great deal. This is unfortunate to the original authors despite having the copyright(s). > > > In the early 1990s we probably needed the GPL, but now > it is no > > longer needed because it does not allow collaboration > between > > different OpenSource communities. > > More nonsense. Nothing significant has changed since the > 1990's. If > anything, there are now even more companies which would use > code that is > currently GPL licensed in proprietary products. > > > The GPL is an "universal receiver" > > of software from other licenses but it does not allow > GPL code to > > move towards other projects. > > That's not a fair characterization, either. The GPL is > not a "universal > receiver". It can only include software that is under > compatible > licenses. Furthermore, the license itself does not prevent > GPL code > from moving into other, more permissively license projects. > It does not > do so by default, certainly, but if there is good cause to > contribute > code to a project under a more permissive license (such as > in the case > that the GPL project used some code from the other, more > permissively > licensed project), then the authors of that project can ask > for a copy > of the software under a suitable license. > > Negotiating. We can all do it. Licenses don't change > that. We can negociate, the hard part is being in agreement :( Regards, Antonio -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
