Notices tagged with gpl

Notices

1. bkuhn

   @stickster, in writing up notes on a #GPL violation, I just wrote "wrapper license needs fixed", so apparently I use it more than I thought!

   about 3 months ago from identi.ca in context
2. bkuhn

   @aseigo, again, please tell me the specific action against a specific #GPL violator that I or #Conservancy or #FSF took that you oppose.

   about 3 months ago from identi.ca
3. bkuhn

   @aseigo, can you point to a specific #GPL enforcement action you take issue with? Seems you've heard FUD about Conservancy's work, perhaps?

   about 3 months ago from identi.ca
4. bkuhn

   I note @johnmark did a good job framing !AGPL question at !SCALE cloud panel, but broad confusion here's akin to #GPL confusion 15 years ago

   about 4 months ago from identi.ca in context
5. mlinksva

   lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2011/12/msg00038.html lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2011/12/msg00045.html #GPL #attribution #history

   about 5 months ago from identi.ca at San Francisco, California, United States
6. mattl

   What I want this holiday: @HP to release #WebOS under #GPL and no proprietary tools for building/flashing it -- http://ur1.ca/6jn1d !gnu !lp

   about 5 months ago from identi.ca at Downtown Crossing, Massachusetts, United States
7. jamesvasile

   Oh, look, the #GPL works even if you put #FOSS on a router and even if you're in Germany. http://1ab.in/10 http://1ab.in/11

   about 6 months ago from identi.ca
8. bkuhn

   @fontana, I believe that a valid © notice under USA © law is appropriate for purposes of !GPL & I disagree that requirement is a "#nullity".

   about 8 months ago from identi.ca
9. bkuhn

   @fontana, it's "relicensing" since your company uses its power as ©holder to take a #GPL'd codebase & *re*license it a different way for $$.

   about 9 months ago from identi.ca
10. bkuhn

    @sandersch, it does, but your question seems to indicate you may have some confusions about what !GPL enforcement is & how it works.

    about 9 months ago from identi.ca
11. bkuhn

    @fontana, e.g.: developers assign to #Conservancy b/c they support !GPL enforcement but don't want to be involved in it day-to-day.

    about 9 months ago from identi.ca
12. bkuhn

    @laforge, I'd point out as well: there would be little !GPL compliance on #Linux in USA if not for #FSF & !BusyBox ©ers using v2§4 this way.

    about 9 months ago from identi.ca in context
13. bkuhn

    @laforge,GPLv2§4 & GPLv3§8 allow for add'l requirements for settlement:"compliance on all !GPL'd software present" Key part of enforcement!

    about 9 months ago from identi.ca in context
14. bkuhn

    @laforge, this is indeed why I support switch to !GPLv3, but "automatic rights restoration at new download" eviscerates #GPL entirely IMO.

    about 9 months ago from identi.ca
15. bkuhn

    @armijn,it favors your !GPL violating clients if they can get license back easily. It favors © holders if rights must be formally restored.

    about 9 months ago from identi.ca
16. bkuhn

    @jospoortvliet, I'd happily say I'm biased on the other side. I want !GPL to favor non-profit developers, because that's who I work for.

    about 9 months ago from identi.ca in context
17. bkuhn

    @jospoortvliet, it's not a credibility question, merely one of motivation. Someone working for violators wants !GPL to favor violators.

    about 9 months ago from identi.ca in context
18. bkuhn

    @laforge,I know that's your position,but do you have a German legal journal article or court case giving a definitive argument on this? !GPL

    about 9 months ago from identi.ca
19. bkuhn

    @liw,this theory certainly isn't true in USA&I've never met a lawyer who believes it. Note: Armijn works for !GPL violators, so he's biased.

    about 9 months ago from identi.ca
20. bkuhn

    @fontana, #Qt is historically complex b/c it's original license was non-commercial use only. Perhaps same business model,but didn't use !GPL

    about 9 months ago from identi.ca