[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Group Copyright

On Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 05:20:09AM -0600, John Galt wrote:
> >> 2) the group/readme
> >
> >If there is no legal problem with this, it's better (because it's less of
> >a hassle!)
> I'm thinking it could be construed as a DBA.


> >Don't you still have to notify everyone?  What if some people cannot be
> >contacted?  Must notice be served in any particular manner or does an
> >email count?  (This is what worries me in the first place..)
> Written notice (basically court service).  As far as "cannot be
> contacted", if publishing in the paper's enough for service on the
> Defendant, I'm sure it should be good enough for a potential Plaintiff.

I don't have access to newspapers in foriegn continents.  ;)  But I get
the idea.

> >Anyway, I'm not sure everyone is going to be interested in taking that
> >risk, and I'm not sure I blame them.
> No, I can't either.  But I'd be remiss if I didn't at least tell you about
> it.

Well supposedly SPI already exists for this purpose, however SPI and
Debian both cower in fear from the mere potential of a cease-and-desist
letter because someone got the bright idea that one might be possible
under a silly US currently law being actively challenged which most legal
scholars have already condemned as unconstitutional.  Given that, 

At this point, I don't have any dillusions that SPI has the desire nor the
ability to defend itself from a $5 small claims suit, let alone initiate
legal proceedings on behalf of someone else in defense of the GPL.

> >> 5) assign rights to a trusted third party or a third party that all agree
> >> should recieve them.
> >
> >And this is even riskier.
> True enough.  The risk is usually outweighed by the intangibles associated
> with the third party.  If they aren't free software zealots, perhaps some
> other charity like the local church or something.

I can just envision being able to declare it sinful to violate the GPL.
It would throw a few BSD guys I know into fits.  ;)  Definite potential
there just for the sake of watching them sputter about the evils of GNU
for an hour or so.  =D

Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@d2dc.net>                   Free software developer

<Thoth_> Yeah, well that's why it's numbered 2.3.1... it's for those of us
         who miss NT-like uptimes

Attachment: pgpMd0b4GKNUX.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: