Felipe Contreras wrote at 11:55 (CEST) on Thursday: > I'm only interested in Linux enforcement.
The enforcement I mentioned by Red Hat was indeed Linux enforcement. > On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Bradley M. Kuhn <bk...@ebb.org> wrote: >> I remind you that Conservancy has never caused the "nightmare scenarios" >> that you keep proposing, thus an argument that Conservancy might >> do it are just as likely if you s/Conservancy/Red Hat/g. > That's nice, but that wouldn't calm any lawyer. Upon reading that, I'm left wondering how many lawyers you've met. I've met hundreds of lawyers, including nearly all of them who specialize in Open Source licensing. I'd say that nearly all of them are calmed when they hear a statement like the one above. > I have never suggested that the policy should be changed, I merely > pointed to the policy, and it's precisely what I said; each copyright > holder decides, so it would be unfair to say that Linux as a project > is seeking enforcement, when it's fact it's only selected individuals. > It would be nice to see the list of individuals, Because of people who attack so aggressively those of us who do enforcement -- as we've seen on this thread -- most of the Linux copyright holders involved have asked to remain anonymous. Conservancy is respecting their wishes. I've encouraged them to speak out themselves if they like. Only two of the dozen or so Conservancy are working with have chosen to come forward and say they're involved. That's Matthew Garrett and Ben Hutchings. -- -- bkuhn _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list busybox@busybox.net http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
