[wp-hackers] Re: Removal Of Over 200 Themes?

[Amy Stephen]

>
>
> Another interesting thing to note is that FSF as a whole practices a
> very polite form of litigation when it comes to these things. They
> never ask for damages, just compliance. So it's not that risky to
> release "Non GPL" code because if FSF pressures you all you have to do
> is admit your code is GPL and Free and then you are fine.


Hm... you might want to ask Verizon Communications their opinion of that
claim. ;-)

http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2008/mar/17/busybox-verizon/

I think we are to the point in history where developers, like the BusyBox
developers, are frustrated with a lack of respect for what "free" means. In
this case, Verizon took BusyBox code and used it (which is groovy) added
their own improvements and sold it (which is groovy) but refused to release
their work, in kind (which is uncool.)

The Software Freedom Law Center (not the FSF) approached them but were
ignored.

http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2008/jul/21/busybox/

That did not bode well with the BusyBox developers and Eben and company were
able to convince Verizon to reconsider their approach.

It is worth pointing out that hostile comments on a forum on behalf of
Verizon exposed an attitude that was clearly lack of respect for developers
intentions and the GPL.

It is also worth pointing out that *any* copyright holder of GPL'ed work can
call upon the resources of the SFLC to help protect their rights.



>
>
> Some interesting reading:
> http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/lu-12.html
> http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/lu-13.html
>
> --
> Jeremy Clarke | http://simianuprising.com
> Code and Design | http://globalvoicesonline.org
> _______________________________________________
> wp-hackers mailing list
> wp-hackers at lists.automattic.com
> http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-hackers
>