On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Martin Langhoff <martin.langhoff@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Yes. And also told Oracle that it was very limited what they could > claim as damage caused by the copyright infringement over those 9 > lines. Very limited in the context of billion dollar lawsuits. Statutory infringement for commercial use makes any infringement a potentially non-trivial at the level of mere mortals. Besides, the damages are generally irrelevant the FUD and disruption are the real costs. The only litigation that ends up in front of a judge are where one or both parties is either crazy or a fool. Everyone else settles. But this is a silly discussion. There is substantial jurisdictional differences on the bar of copyrightability, and because there are basically no useful bright lines the details are basically not worth discussing. The point is that being cautious and conservative is a very good policy and about the only one which can be sanely advocated. If someone's contributions are really insignificant then it's no big deal to replace them if they're being unfriendly and are unwilling to go along with a re-licensing. It may be a bit of a pain, but it's much less of a pain than.. this discussion not to mention the pain of a potential legal dispute. And no, re-licensing a many-authored project isn't simply fun or easy. This is also a reason why projects should practice good hygiene upfront, and checking up on this— and propagating best practices— is one of the services a packager can provide to their upstreams. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
