3 ms·
I see both: > I believe individual developers who have contributed to the Linux kernel should have the right to enforce the license, if needed. and then.. >
by anilgulecha 9y ago
I see both:
> I believe individual developers who have contributed to the Linux kernel should have the right to enforce the license, if needed.
and then..
> On the other hand, such activities must always be oriented to compliance, and compliance only. Collecting huge amounts of contractual penalties is questionable.
To wit, isn't this a dichotomy? Either you make compliance mandatory, or optional. Can you have both of the above? How can you enforce without a threat of penalty?
- larkeith 9y agoMonetary penalties should be used only as a threat, for example in cases where entities are unwilling to come into compliance, rather than a goal; My understanding is that McHardy is doing something much more equitable to patent trolling, attempting to obtain large payouts for past violations, whereas the preferred methodologies would be to pursue legal penalty against contract violations only in cases where prior requests and legal actions have failed to cause a noncompliant entity to fall into line.
- phkahler 9y agoI don't see compliance as the only reasonable goal. I'd someone wrote code and their copyright is infringed, who is to say what they can sure for? For me it may depend on the infringers apparent motive. Companies come in all flavors, from those making honest mistakes all the way down to SCO. And then authors have their own motives. Who are we to judge the penalties sought by someone else?