On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 10:43:26PM +0200, KJKHyperion wrote:
Quandary wrote:
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.
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.
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