> None of what Alessandro described is harmful, it is explcitly > allowed by the license. You are claiming that there are problems > when there are none, it is like having people claiming that the > GPL has problems by disallowing a GPLed project being converted > into a non-free program.
I must say the analogy is completely wrong, and, I'm sorry, almost specious here. Care to explain why? > If you wish to have a way to enforce the copyright, then you will > need to have copyright papers. Otherwise, you cannot enforce it > at all, it really doesn't matter what license you are using. A > judge would love to hear "Sorry your Honour, but I couldn't > gather the copyright holders to actually sue the accused'. I do not think a judge would love that, probably an evil lawyer from the other side, but not the judge. I think the judge would actually like to judge facts not handle formalities. The judge would infact throw the case out. Only the copyright holder can sue for infrigment. > In theory, anyone can go and make Linux a non-free program, since > it is simply impossible to enforce the license there. In practice I think this shows up to be false, otherwise it would have already happened, don't you think SCO would have already done that otherwise for example ? It has happened, and it is continuing to happen. Usually it is easily solved though. Cheers. _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
