27 Jun
2005
27 Jun
'05
9:28 p.m.
On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 10:43:26PM +0200,
KJKHyperion wrote:
Quandary wrote:
That depends on the jurisdiction, which is another
big whole mess. No one person owns the copyright,
here, and there are contributors in lots of
countries. So... which court would this even
be tried in? Whose laws apply?
We don't have a revokation clause in the license;
does this mean it's revokable? Non-revokable? Again,
you need a lawyer and *some* semblance of
jurisdiction before you can even begin to start
untangling this mess.
And that's my point exactly -- you'd need
a lawyer
to interpret that, and ultimately it's the judge
who makes the final decision
nope. In these matters, the copyright holder
basically owns your ass. We can revoke all rights to
anyone we please. Copyleft is just good manners, copyright is the
law. Remember this already happened: a fork of
OpenBSD was killed by license termination in
response to copyright misrepresentation - and, boy,
does it take a special brand of stupidity to manage
to violate a BSD license
1) links, please.
2) Copyleft is law, too -- since it's based directly
on copyright. Some licenses leverage that legal
ability (GPL), some don't (BSD).
That said, the Hostilix people have no shame and no
fear; they are well-known copyright violators (their
WinuxOS was a repackaged Windows 2000, wasting
SourceForge's bandwidth too) and are doing their
best to alienate us; they are a bunch of loser punk
posers who embarass the whole OS-development scene.
Let them get away with it, they are do-no-good hacks
and nothing can punish them worse than simply
existing. Hostilix will die naturally from the
complete lack of any form of skill on the part of
the pathetic clowns who conceived it
Agreed.
-- Travis
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com