Re: Copyright

[Mahesh T Pai]

Ken Brown wrote:

FSF has bullied a couple of developers, but hasn't had a judge rule
in their favor yet.  When they win in a court of law, I'll open my
mind to their sales pitch a little more.

If the means used by FSF are 'bullying', how do you describe the activities of the BSA?

I regard the fact that there is no decision in favour of the GPL as a major plus point in its favour. Absence of a ruling in its favour means, to me, :-
1. The license is easy to comply with.
2. There is no decision on GPL, coz no body went to court over it.
3. Nobody went to court over GPL coz. nobody continues with the violations once the fact is pointed out.

That the FSF (or any other author who released his/her software under the GPL) never had to go to court is a major plus point of the GPL.

Without the restrictions of a license that insists on strict enforcement of your copyright, ...

You do not need a license to protect / enforce your copyright. The statute book does it.

From my research, agreeing to GPL your work does not technically
revoke your ownership of the playground, but it does revoke almost
all of the rights and privileges that come with ownership

Will you please clarify that?

I cannot control what anybody does with my
work, besides assert credit,

That is the *intention* of the GPL. In other words, it is not a bug but a feature.

Regards,
Mahesh T Pai.


--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3