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