top | item 47201084 (no title) throawayonthe | 1 day ago the FSF position is that GPL is unenforceable without a single copyright owner, which is why almost all gnu projects, linux, canonical/redhat/etc projects have a CLA or something functionally similar discuss order hn newest Macha|1 day ago That would seem a bizarre position from the FSF, since it would make the license on combined GPL works unenforceable. Do you have a source for that? throawayonthe|18 hours ago main point is expressed here i think: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.htmlbut also seems i was mistaken about the status of linux copyright, they actually do have distributed copyright, apologies nine_k|1 day ago GPL maternally depends on copyright enforcement. Who would sue if an infringement is detected? All the contributors collectively? load replies (1)
Macha|1 day ago That would seem a bizarre position from the FSF, since it would make the license on combined GPL works unenforceable. Do you have a source for that? throawayonthe|18 hours ago main point is expressed here i think: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.htmlbut also seems i was mistaken about the status of linux copyright, they actually do have distributed copyright, apologies nine_k|1 day ago GPL maternally depends on copyright enforcement. Who would sue if an infringement is detected? All the contributors collectively? load replies (1)
throawayonthe|18 hours ago main point is expressed here i think: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.htmlbut also seems i was mistaken about the status of linux copyright, they actually do have distributed copyright, apologies
nine_k|1 day ago GPL maternally depends on copyright enforcement. Who would sue if an infringement is detected? All the contributors collectively? load replies (1)
Macha|1 day ago
throawayonthe|18 hours ago
but also seems i was mistaken about the status of linux copyright, they actually do have distributed copyright, apologies
nine_k|1 day ago