20 ms·

McHardy wasn't trying to get compliance, he was trying to get money. He didn't care about source availability at all, and many of the suits were over licensing

McHardy wasn't trying to get compliance, he was trying to get money. He didn't care about source availability at all, and many of the suits were over licensing matters entirely unrelated to source availability. Enforcement is a good thing. But the point is to get people complying with the license.

baybal2 6y ago
Look at the results instead...
reitzensteinm 6y ago
Surely the point is whatever the people that own the copyrights decide it is?
- tephra 6y ago
  Isn't that exactly what choosing a license is all about? Choosing a license and then not caring if the license is upheld seems like you should have chosen another license.
  - reitzensteinm 6y ago
    The question is whether monetary damages should be sought on top of compliance.
    - dspillett 6y ago
      Dual-license. Set out a commercial option. Once compliance is achieved they are liable for the commercial licensing fees for the period up until that time. It isn't a fine, it isn't damages, it is just the normal cost of doing business. May the standard licensing costs quite high (but not exorbitant) and state that other terms are available if negotiated before using the software. If they refuse to pay and the amount is large enough, sell the dept to a collections agency and at least cause some inconvenience (though that last part probably won't work across international borders). Of course if you don't want financial recompense, and open-source-ness is your only concern, then compliance it the only matter to be concerned about. But some people and commercial entities simply won't respect that up-front (so you'll have to fight for compliance) unless non-compliance has an associated cost.
    - JoshTriplett 6y ago
      I'm not suggesting they shouldn't be. On the contrary, "on top of" is fine; those efforts cost money and time. I'm saying that some people don't care about compliance, and are just out to get monetary "damages". Which is exceptionally questionable when you're just one of the tens of thousands of people who might theoretically have a claim, but you're pursuing something unilaterally without regard for actually obtaining sources and encouraging future compliance.
      - reitzensteinm 6y ago
        Right, that is questionable, and I jumped the gun in assuming you were talking more generally. I am assuming their plan doesn't involve mailing out tens of thousands of cheques after victory!
belorn 6y ago
When there have been a confrontation with a company that will willingly break the law in order to get money and people which intent is to get source availability, the outcome has been no source and no compliance. In every confrontation between people, strategies need to adapt when goals fails to be achieved. Even if the goal of McHardy has been to get money, the effect of that strategy might produce more compliance with source than the past strategy of SFC.

baybal2 6y ago

Look at the results instead...

reitzensteinm 6y ago

Surely the point is whatever the people that own the copyrights decide it is?

tephra 6y ago
Isn't that exactly what choosing a license is all about? Choosing a license and then not caring if the license is upheld seems like you should have chosen another license.
- reitzensteinm 6y ago
  The question is whether monetary damages should be sought on top of compliance.
  - dspillett 6y ago
    Dual-license. Set out a commercial option. Once compliance is achieved they are liable for the commercial licensing fees for the period up until that time. It isn't a fine, it isn't damages, it is just the normal cost of doing business. May the standard licensing costs quite high (but not exorbitant) and state that other terms are available if negotiated before using the software. If they refuse to pay and the amount is large enough, sell the dept to a collections agency and at least cause some inconvenience (though that last part probably won't work across international borders). Of course if you don't want financial recompense, and open-source-ness is your only concern, then compliance it the only matter to be concerned about. But some people and commercial entities simply won't respect that up-front (so you'll have to fight for compliance) unless non-compliance has an associated cost.
  - JoshTriplett 6y ago
    I'm not suggesting they shouldn't be. On the contrary, "on top of" is fine; those efforts cost money and time. I'm saying that some people don't care about compliance, and are just out to get monetary "damages". Which is exceptionally questionable when you're just one of the tens of thousands of people who might theoretically have a claim, but you're pursuing something unilaterally without regard for actually obtaining sources and encouraging future compliance.
    - reitzensteinm 6y ago
      Right, that is questionable, and I jumped the gun in assuming you were talking more generally. I am assuming their plan doesn't involve mailing out tens of thousands of cheques after victory!

belorn 6y ago

When there have been a confrontation with a company that will willingly break the law in order to get money and people which intent is to get source availability, the outcome has been no source and no compliance. In every confrontation between people, strategies need to adapt when goals fails to be achieved. Even if the goal of McHardy has been to get money, the effect of that strategy might produce more compliance with source than the past strategy of SFC.