Re: Legal dangers (was Re: polarization)

bruce perens com (Bruce Perens) writes:

> Actually, in this (admittedly theoretical) case, it would be
> _us_suing_them_ for a GPL violation. Or more likely, we'd just decide,
> collectively, not to sue and to allow companies to license patents in
> order that the project survive. After all, we are (collectively) the
> patent holders and we can make that decision. In that case, the GNOME
> desktop survives and might have widespread popularity, but people would
> pay patent licenses to sell it. The developers would live with that reality
> and would themselves be covered by someone else's patent license, but could
> not distribute freely any longer.

I disagree that the developers would be happy to keep working on Gnome
even if it became effectively non-free. I can assure you that all the
core developers believe deeply in free software and we would all quit
the project or our jobs (if applicable) or both if this happened. We
definitely don't need you to help us avoid selling out.

But while some of the rest of your nightmare scenario might be
plausible, it represents at most 1% of the kind of stuff the board
will have to do. We're much better off with people on the board who
can handle the 99%, the day to day operations.

I agree with Havoc's notes in an earlier message by the way. If you
want people on the board with organizational skills, and the ability
to talk to corporations and organize money and nonprofits, vote for
people like Bart, Jim Gettys, Daniel Veillard and John Heard. If you
really want to vote for Bruce, then instead of replacing a vote for
one of them, replace me. Like Havoc, I am vocal and involved enough
that I can make my voice heard with or without a board seat.

 - Maciej

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]