Re: 9th Cir. License Primer

[David Kastrup]

RJack <user@example.net> writes:

> As the SFLC and Erik Andersen are learning to their dismay, a valid
> Copyright Office registration of an open source project such as a
> version of BusyBox requires the registration of all the *individual*
> contributors' work all the way back to the original author's initial
> contribution. In order for a complex and evolving derivative work "as a
> whole" to be registered, each recursive, preexisting version must also
> be registered -- a virtually impossible task when multiple authors are
> involved see for example:

[...]

> The chances of a GPL project's enforcement in a federal court is dead
> long before the judge ever reads the GPL.

The respective chances for success of copyright enforcement in court are
what causes the FSF to get copyright assignments for key pieces of GNU
software, pretty much from the start of when the GPL has been designed.
So it is not exactly news for them or the SFLC that distributed
copyright makes for rougher sailing.

There is no indication so far, however, that anything is going amiss
here.  That the situation leaves more to fantasize about for our
resident legal nincompoops (as witnessed by their
quite-worse-than-random prediction track records) until the case closes
is not actually cause for worry.

-- 
David Kastrup