Talk:Problems with free software and open source models: Difference between revisions
Talk:Problems with free software and open source models (edit)
Revision as of 21:15, 24 March 2004
, 24 March 2004the point is valid even if the wording is questionable: FSF doesn't have the resources or expertise to sue even known GPL abusers
(don't think second point is valid) |
(the point is valid even if the wording is questionable: FSF doesn't have the resources or expertise to sue even known GPL abusers) |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
Issue #2 in the main article is not valid. Where does anybody get the idea that nobody can sue under the GPL? The copyright holder has the power to sue. Just like under any other license. (IANAL, etc.) Eric119 [[User:209.145.192.46|209.145.192.46]] 05:14, 24 Mar 2004 (EET) | Issue #2 in the main article is not valid. Where does anybody get the idea that nobody can sue under the GPL? The copyright holder has the power to sue. Just like under any other license. (IANAL, etc.) Eric119 [[User:209.145.192.46|209.145.192.46]] 05:14, 24 Mar 2004 (EET) | ||
:Who "the copyright holder" is, and where they get the money or help to sue, is often up in the air. FSF doesn't pursue every case, and has no grounds to even ask contributors to GPL projects to help it contribute. The "power" to sue is not real if there is no resource base, no [[self-funding]]. Yes this could be better stated, but don't pretend that FSF actually really sues people and ever gets them to cease or desist anything. The point is valid even if the wording is not. There are many known GPL abusers and the FSF simply has no power to stop them, and that's in part due to lack of [[self-funding]]. | |||
:It's true though that [[GFDL]] makes the copyright holder even more ambiguous and really does make it quite impossible to sue. At least according to James Day and other lawyers who've looked at the problem. A lot of people now prefer [[Creative Commons]] for this very reason, as it has at least a minimal consortium put together. | |||