From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ruben@mrbrklyn.com (Ruben Safir) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 19:55:12 -0400 Subject: Kernel contributions from organisations and individual privacy In-Reply-To: <557A1BBF.1070007@surriel.com> References: <55791A7C.1030904@mrbrklyn.com> <20150611142829.GC17984@kroah.com> <55799E35.5080608@mrbrklyn.com> <20150611153813.GA5058@kroah.com> <5579B9D3.9030208@mrbrklyn.com> <20150611175700.GF22639@kroah.com> <20150611232623.GA2026@www.mrbrklyn.com> <557A1BBF.1070007@surriel.com> Message-ID: <557A1FE0.2070608@mrbrklyn.com> To: kernelnewbies@lists.kernelnewbies.org List-Id: kernelnewbies.lists.kernelnewbies.org On 06/11/2015 07:37 PM, Rik van Riel wrote: > On 06/11/2015 07:26 PM, Ruben Safir wrote: > >> Not at all. You have a good point there are definitely legal situations >> other than relicensing which are problematic. >> >> Lets say Apple decides that are going to take the Linux Kernel and >> alter it extensively, in order for it to work with a new hardware platform >> that they created. And lets say don't return the code base to the public. >> Now who is going to protect the license and sue them? You have literaly >> thousands of partiticpants who have standing now in this case. > > That means a thousand possible plaintiffs. > > s/Apple/VMware/ and you get this: > > http://sfconservancy.org/news/2015/mar/05/vmware-lawsuit/ > > A number of GPL enforcement projects involving the Linux kernel > have resulted in GPL compliance already. > yeah, I've been following this case...it is an interesting case but not exacly on point. First of all the case is in Germany and their rules of standing are different.