On 06/11/2015 08:13 PM, Jeff Haran wrote: >> On 06/11/2015 07:26 PM, Ruben Safir wrote: >> >>> Not at all. You have a good point there are definitely legal >>> situations other than relicensing which are problematic. >>> >>> Lets say Apple decides that are going to take the Linux Kernel and >>> alter it extensively, in order for it to work with a new hardware >>> platform that they created. And lets say don't return the code base to the >> public. >>> Now who is going to protect the license and sue them? You have >>> literaly thousands of partiticpants who have standing now in this case. >> >> That means a thousand possible plaintiffs. >> >> s/Apple/VMware/ and you get this: >> >> http://sfconservancy.org/news/2015/mar/05/vmware-lawsuit/ >> > > I don't see in that web site the amount of damages they are asking for. Maybe I missed it. They are not asking for damages, but for license compliance. > Might get more money coming in for the plaintiff's lawyers if instead of asking > for contributions that yield a tee shirt, it was constructed more like an investment, > as in X% of total "contributions" gets the investor X% of (damages - legal fees) > should they win. I suspect that is not possible, since not every Linux kernel copyright holder will want to be part of a lawsuit (of any kind). The Conservancy is a non-profit. The defendants usually end up paying the legal costs (and sometimes a contribution for help with GPL compliance), but starting new actions is something that is funded by people like us, who care about preserving the GPL license. -- All rights reversed. _______________________________________________ Kernelnewbies mailing list Kernelnewbies@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
