Re: Dell vs. GPL

From: Miles Bader <miles@lsi.nec.co.jp>
To: Andre Hedrick <andre@linux-ide.org>
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Svein Ove Aas <svein.ove@aas.no>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Dell vs. GPL
Date: 30 Jun 2003 15:39:09 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <buoznk06pde.fsf@mcspd15.ucom.lsi.nec.co.jp> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10306292053480.2711-100000@master.linux-ide.org>

Andre Hedrick <andre@linux-ide.org> writes:
> I know first hand that I can not take "RAIDZONE" to court yet to sue for
> GPL violation to get the code back into the community and monetary
> damages, until I fully file a registered copyright and not the halfassed
> crap of just sticking you name and email address in a file.
> 
> GPL wins great.
> GPL loses, maybe better so it can be replaced with OSL and then it gets
> serious because we will have teeth to defend the ideas of open source.

Even if you are right about the need to register (I have no idea, though
everyone else seems to say otherwise), this seems like a bizarre
conclusion.  If the problem is the lack of proper copyright
registration, how would changing the license make the least bit of
difference?

-Miles
-- 
`...the Soviet Union was sliding in to an economic collapse so comprehensive
 that in the end its factories produced not goods but bads: finished products
 less valuable than the raw materials they were made from.'  [The Economist]