4 ms·
I'm not a fan of the GPLv3 limiting the available response to copyright violations. Time limits in particular. It's one of the less clear parts of the license I
by phkahler 5y ago
I'm not a fan of the GPLv3 limiting the available response to copyright violations. Time limits in particular. It's one of the less clear parts of the license IMHO, and it affects the primary means of enforcement.
Fortunately a lot of GPLv3 code is actually 3+ so maybe if a version 4 ever comes along this nonsensical restriction on enforcement will be more limited. I do understand the reasons around accidental misuse, but I haven't really seen anyone getting into big trouble from accidental misuse. I have seen these high profile cases of deliberate misuse by big corporations.
- lucasyvas 5y agoI'm not personally a fan of protecting against accidental misuse. No other law offers significant leniency for ignorance that I am aware of.
- r_hoods_ghost 5y agoThis is a common misconception. I don't know about US law but in English law (including contract law) there is a well defined distinction between "wilful" and "non-wilful" misconduct that rests upon whether a violation is intentional. Definitionally violating a contract or clause that you are ignorant of cannot be intentional. I know in the US the same concept of wilfulness is used in the context of tax law at the very least. tldr; in law ignorance is a defence, or at least a mitigating circumstance.
- londons_explore 5y agoI am very much in favor of laws that offer leniency for procedural violations. For example, I believe "You built this building before you got a permit to build it" shouldn't be a crime - there should only be a punishment if I cannot retrospectively get a permit in a reasonable timeframe.