3 ms·
> The reason they had to be "controlling and litigious" is so that their licensing terms were respected and they received the attribution they deserved You are
by gaur 10y ago
> The reason they had to be "controlling and litigious" is so that their licensing terms were respected and they received the attribution they deserved
You are free to harass people about licensing if you want, but you don't then get to turn around and claim you're fighting the good fight against overly restrictive copyright law.
If you're litigating against small-time festival organizers for not putting fine print on a poster picture, you're much closer to the Warner Music end of the spectrum rather than the Richard Stallman end of the spectrum in terms of copyright.
- detaro 10y agoWhere does Richard Stallman endorse not enforcing the GPL or other open-source licenses?
- gaur 10y agoI did not make that claim.
- detaro 10y agoYou claim that enforcing open licenses, designed to make it easier to use, modify and share works for general benefit is more big-bad business than Stallmans perspective. But Stallman is generally a vocal supporter of such licenses, so if he supports their enforcement he is just as bad? Both CC and open-source software use the framework of existing copyright law to guarantee a "fair" use of works, with only few restrictions. Not without any restrictions. I maybe should not have responded with this provocative question, but to me both movements use very similar tools for similar purposes.
- cooper12 10y ago> Both CC and open-source software use the framework of existing copyright law to guarantee a "fair" use of works, with only few restrictions. Not without any restrictions. You said it much better than I ever could :). And that's why I used the comparison to the GPL, especially since that has a history of the FSF going to court over violations.