2 Comments

  1. Mike Schinkel

    Feels like what Moglen is saying here is: “We don’t want to take it to court because it we do the courts will prove that what we have been asserting all along is false, and so better to assert a falsehood and hope people will believe it than to actually risk having the falsehood exposed?”

    Note, I am not pro or con GPL, I recognize it exists and that many people value it and I respect the choices of those people.

    But I don’t like it when people assert that falsehoods are truth, and as far as I can tell that is what happens when FSF claims that GPL has legal meaning but do their best to avoid having it ever tested in court. And I have felt this about GPL for many years, it’s not an opinion I just recently formed after reading this article.

    Report

    • John Teague

      Honestly, major projects licensed under GPL, including The WordPress Foundation, seem hesitant to see an enforcement/damages case all the way through to a judgement. So, the teeth of GPL remains speculative.

      WordPress may go after another entity or individual(s) for infringement, but I think most would agree WordPress likely has the most to lose if a judgement against the validity of the license goes against them.

      I support the GPL, but there’s a lot not to like from a liability point if view. I do wonder at times if Apache wouldn’t be a better choice (please don’t break out pitchforks), or even FreeBSD.

      Report

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: