3 ms·

The "leadership" of Linux foundation, have been (and I am paraphrasing) quoted at various talks on the subjects in Q & A;s saying they can not conceive of a sce

The "leadership" of Linux foundation, have been (and I am paraphrasing) quoted at various talks on the subjects in Q & A;s saying they can not conceive of a scenario for which they would choose legal action over attempting non-legal action (such as Public naming, PR campaign's etc). They simply reject using the legal system to enforce the license. i am not aware of any legal action the Linux foundation, or anyone in the leadership of said has participated in, in a few instances, like the one that lead to the Enforcement Statement they have actively tried to kill the legal action. The Enforcement Statement is vague purposefully as to what "good faith", and purposefully never spells out when it is OK to move to the courts... because in their view that answer is never

SllX 4y ago
So in other words the Linux Foundation is not a litigious organization and therefore contributors must enforce their copyrights on their own to the extent that they are interested in them. I’m not intimately familiar with this organization but if they weren’t organized as a legal foundation to pursue copyright enforcement of Linux source code then it makes sense they’re never involved in lawsuits like this. It could very well just be outside its core purpose and well I guess that just makes sense since contribute retain the rights to their code and being a contributor doesn’t automatically establish an attorney-client relationship. I managed to filter through all the SCO and most of the non-Linux lawsuit stuff gumming up Google and near as I can tell, the only lawsuits involving copyright violations are or Linux specifically are pursued by individuals or agencies like SFC. So given all that I would read this enforcement statement as a PR move more than a definite article, less “this list of people is effectively giving up their copyright” and more “so you know that one jackass? Well this lot undersigned here won’t be like him. Please don’t stop supporting and using Linux.” Just as an aside, what constitutes “good faith” is something that can and usually is regardless of whatever contract or license is in effect litigated in court.

SllX 4y ago

So in other words the Linux Foundation is not a litigious organization and therefore contributors must enforce their copyrights on their own to the extent that they are interested in them. I’m not intimately familiar with this organization but if they weren’t organized as a legal foundation to pursue copyright enforcement of Linux source code then it makes sense they’re never involved in lawsuits like this. It could very well just be outside its core purpose and well I guess that just makes sense since contribute retain the rights to their code and being a contributor doesn’t automatically establish an attorney-client relationship. I managed to filter through all the SCO and most of the non-Linux lawsuit stuff gumming up Google and near as I can tell, the only lawsuits involving copyright violations are or Linux specifically are pursued by individuals or agencies like SFC. So given all that I would read this enforcement statement as a PR move more than a definite article, less “this list of people is effectively giving up their copyright” and more “so you know that one jackass? Well this lot undersigned here won’t be like him. Please don’t stop supporting and using Linux.” Just as an aside, what constitutes “good faith” is something that can and usually is regardless of whatever contract or license is in effect litigated in court.