[IAEP] [Sugar-devel] [SLOBS] GPL non compliance? was Re: GPL non-compliance, was Re: GPLv3

[Martin Langhoff]

On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 8:34 AM, Walter Bender <walter.bender at gmail.com> wrote:
> Likewise, Sugar Labs has an obligation to act on all GPL violations
> reported on Sugar Labs copyrighted code. But we cannot act on our own
> if we do not hold copyright.

Minor technical note here -- SL has a right, but (surprisingly) no
obligation to act. With trademarks, for example, you have an
obligation; if you don't act, infringers can say you've relinquished
your right to the trademark, and you may lose it. (Acting doesn't need
to be in condemnation; a friend of SL may be found using SL's
trademark without prior authorization, be asked in friendly to
formally request authorization, and then have it granted. Sounds like
a silly dance, but so are trademark laws.)

Copyright, OTOH, is a right that is not lost via inaction. Not that
you'd want to avoid action, but are definitely not rushed into action.
That's in part why those enforcing GPL compliance can take time in
negotiations and discussions -- and usually do.

cheers,


m
-- 
 martin.langhoff at gmail.com
 martin at laptop.org -- Software Architect - OLPC
 - ask interesting questions
 - don't get distracted with shiny stuff  - working code first
 - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff