[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Why are so many great packages not trying to get included in GNU Ema
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: Why are so many great packages not trying to get included in GNU Emacs? |
Date: |
Thu, 07 May 2020 15:44:24 +0300 |
> From: Kévin Le Gouguec <address@hidden>
> Date: Thu, 07 May 2020 11:40:52 +0200
> Cc: Yuan Fu <address@hidden>, Richard Stallman <address@hidden>,
> Eric Abrahamsen <address@hidden>,
> Emacs developers <address@hidden>,
> Stefan Monnier <address@hidden>,
> Phillip Lord <address@hidden>, address@hidden
>
> The best assessment of copyright assignment effectiveness I know of is
> Bradley Kuhn's recap of the issue in 2012[1]:
>
> > Simply put, the GPL violation defending lawyers have gotten more
> > obsessed than ever with delay tactics. They try to raise every
> > spurious issue they can think of to delay you, distract you, or
> > otherwise try to avoid bringing their client into compliance with the
> > terms of GPL. If you don't hold all the copyrights, they'll focus on
> > that issue. For example, I had an executive of a large computer maker
> > tell me that his lawyers say "copyright infringement claims are
> > legally invalid unless you hold a majority of the copyrights". This
> > is completely asinine and clearly incorrect in the USA, but violators
> > make these arguments all the time. As another example: I was once
> > deposed in a court case for 8 hours about the topic whether or not
> > BusyBox's configuration files magically made Erik Andersen's
> > copyrights fail to appear in the binary work. That's a spurious
> > argument that I spent 8 hours refuting, yet the violator's lawyer
> > again brought it up in the Court as a defense that we had to refute.
>
> To me that sort of suggests that copyright assignment is neither
> sufficient (you still need enough resources to overcome "every spurious
> issue" the defending lawyers will throw at you) nor necessary (since
> Bradley considers it "asinine" to say "an infringement claim is invalid
> without holding a majority of the copyrights").
Actually, Bradley's conclusion, the very next paragraph after the one
you quoted, is a direct opposite of yours, AFAICT. If we are going to
cite others who might have educated opinions on this matter, why not
cite them more completely?
- Re: Why are so many great packages not trying to get included in GNU Emacs?, Phillip Lord, 2020/05/05
- Re: Why are so many great packages not trying to get included in GNU Emacs?, 조성빈, 2020/05/07
- Re: Why are so many great packages not trying to get included in GNU Emacs?, tomas, 2020/05/07
- Re: Why are so many great packages not trying to get included in GNU Emacs?, Stefan Kangas, 2020/05/07
- Re: Why are so many great packages not trying to get included in GNU Emacs?, Richard Stallman, 2020/05/07
- Re: Why are so many great packages not trying to get included in GNU Emacs?, Stefan Monnier, 2020/05/07
- Drop the Copyright Assignment requirement for Emacs, Stefan Kangas, 2020/05/08
- Re: Drop the Copyright Assignment requirement for Emacs, Stefan Monnier, 2020/05/08
- Re: Drop the Copyright Assignment requirement for Emacs, Stefan Kangas, 2020/05/08
- Re: Drop the Copyright Assignment requirement for Emacs, Eli Zaretskii, 2020/05/08