Re: FLA
Bernhard Reiter <[email protected]> Thu, 6 Feb 2003 15:34:30 +0100
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.kde.policies |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 03:25:42PM +0100, Harri Porten wrote: > On Thu, 6 Feb 2003, Bernhard Reiter wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 02:31:15PM +0100, Harri Porten wrote: > > I would note that the main point of licenses is not opinions. > > They try to legally enforce the decision of the rights holder. > > In this case to release work as Free Software. > > Note that we use different licences in KDE and there are even more > opinions on how to interpret them. There are good reason to choose different Free Software licenses, but what each of them means should be fairly clear. > > The license has to be effective on a pratical legal basis > > and opinions only have a very limited legal influence. > > In court, yes. But with e.g the GPL never been legally challenged (to my > knowledge) I have the attribute everything that has happened under its > influence to be based solely on opinions and interpretations conveyed and > discussed by authors, users and bystanders (slashdot readers). My very > personal theory :) The GPL was legally challenged and won the best end of legal battles possible: The lawyers from the offenders looked at it and told their clients: Chances of winning in court are minimal, we need to comply. Nextstep and Objective-C in gcc is such a case. > > The idea of the FLA is that the fiduciary (e.g. the FSFE or the KDE e.V.) > > acts on behalf of the people. The FLA makes sure that this (e.g. > > fully release as Free Software) is done or the rights will fall back. > > Sure. We intend to do the same with the trademark assignment. It's a safe > model. But as stated previously KDE needs some more organizational work to > have a functional and accepted fiduciary. And I don't mean to say that the > lack thereof is a killer argument in the copyright discussion brought up > by Mark. > > > The ability to fix legal bugs is in the interest of Free Software authors. > > Again depends on the interpretation of what a "bug" is. I agree with your last two points. Still it is an advantage if a non-profit organisation and its lawyers try to get good legal interpretations compare to reach author for themselfs. Bernhard
signature.asc
(application/pgp-signature, 189 B)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+QnJ2h9ag3dpKERYRAkafAJ0dQM4pWRKzG2+mFQeMMVWQ3B+boQCg0BH+ xyAEWA83lFn19QLCEvkKkFE= =1+/o -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----