On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 11:38 AM, <libreplanet-discuss-requ...@libreplanet.org> wrote:
> Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2012 18:11:53 -0400 > From: Patrick <patr...@spellingbeewinnars.org> > To: Ted Smith <te...@riseup.net> > Cc: libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org > Subject: Re: [libreplanet-discuss] help with FSF incompatible but > community oriented licence(s) > Message-ID: <506cb829.6040...@spellingbeewinnars.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > > >> It goes against the mission of this mailing list as an FSF project to >> help anyone find a license meeting this criteria: >> > Then I give up. > > But in closing, if you are not making incremental progress towards your > goals then you won't reach them. > > It's sad that BSD is gaining traction. It's much worse then GPL and all > that I am concerned about is worse with it. yes. this is only part of the story: http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/8991.html the other part of the story is the "estoppel defense", which you should look up. google and other copyright holders *knowing* that there are GPL Copyright infringements taking place, and them doing *nothing about it*, it is possible, especially after many years, for an infringer to [successfully] claim that they *implicitly* were given permission, due to the non-enforcement of the Copyright license. this is not a bullshit defense, it's a legitimate defense with a specific legal name, called "estoppel". in germany, there is even a fixed time limit of 30 days for Copyright infringement cases to be brought against criminal infringers. beyond that 30 day period, you *automatically* lose all rights to continue Copyright infringement. in the case of BSD Licenses however, there is absolutely no such time-limited recourse [implicit or explicit]: it's already over. you *gave* permission for people to not release the source code. > I am alone with this and depressed you're not alone. i can't help you with the depression bit though :) l.