coordinated compliance efforts addresses the issues of this thread

[Bradley M. Kuhn]

Felipe Contreras wrote:
>  It's perfectly fine for developers to enforce the license of *their*
> code, that is enforced by copyright law, I *never* said otherwise. But
> developers shouldn't weigh on the code of other developers in the
> project, or even other projects.

If you agree that copyright law gives absolute licensing power to copyright
holders, then it should be obvious that copyright holders can ask
for whatever they want as part of a license reinstatement.  It's their
prerogative under the current legal regime.  As such, if they want to ask
the license violators to stand on their heads for week before they can have
a GPL license back on their copyrights, the copyright holders can so ask.

As you'd stated elsewhere in the thread, and the point I think you are
eluding to again in the text quoted above is: in the past, some of the
requests the copyright holders of BusyBox who have done enforcement were
unreasonable, in your view.  I respectfully disagree with your
opinion, but I'm not going to agree that it was illegitimate for BusyBox
copyright holders to do that.  Indeed, you've offered no evidence that
such action was legally invalid.  Indeed, many of our arguments about the
power of copyright holders to decide a license supports that position.

As I said when this thread was revived a few weeks ago, Conservancy now
has a broad coalition of copyright holders, including Linux and BusyBox
ones, who work together collaboratively.  It appears you're the only one
on this list who isn't satisfied with that as a resolution to the concerns
raised on the beginning of the thread (which was back in early 2012).

> Yes, so what? Copyright law can evolve to the needs of today, but it
> would still protect the developers, no the users.

That's an opinion, and I don't agree with it.  I pointed out in my last
email how both our arguments mix both opinion and fact.  I don't think
copyright law "protects" anyone; I believe it's a legal system that
exists, that is usually used for the detriment of society but can, when
done correctly, be used to advance useful goals of freedom of users and
programmers alike.

If I wanted to use truly factual terms, I'd say simply that copyright is
legal statue to grant limited time monopolies over creative
expressions fixed in tangible mediums, as permitted by Article I, §8 of
the USA Constitution.  Calling it "protection" (as you do) or a "usually
used as a detriment to society" (as I do) is just rhetoric.

We have a difference of opinion.  And I don't see how this part of the
debate is helping anyone.

> In a court of law what the FSF intended is irrelevant,

That's not strictly true, in fact.  The FSF may well be called as an
expert witness to opine on its intent of the license.  For example, in GPL
court cases for Conservancy, I've often been asked about my work at FSF,
and it was deemed relevant by the judge.

> Opinions, desires, and intents are irrelevant.

Actually, all those things can often be relevant.  "licensor's intent", in
particular, is of great importance to federal copyright judges in the USA.
Have you read any USA copyright case law related to software?  Did you
read the Jacobsen v. Katzer decision?

   -- bkuhn