[svlug] (forw) RE: (forw) Re: Time to dump those yahoo accounts

[Rick Moen]

(Again, passing this along with Dick Morrell's approval.)


 From: Richard Michael Morrell <richard at linuxtec.co.uk>
 To: Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com>
 Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 09:35:05 +0000
 Subject: Re: [svlug] (forw) RE: (forw) Re: Time to dump those yahoo accounts

Smoothwall Ltd had nothing to do with it, this predated Ltd's formation.
I know Harold well - the GPL wouldn't stand up in the UK courts - it
wouldn't get past go and thats a great shame. You can't "sue" IPcop -
all you can say is they're a bunch of tossers who can use find and
replace and removed our names from three years of attributed code and
replaced it with copyright IPCop.

I only sue people I can make money from
(http://www.dickmorrell.com/ms/settlement.pdf) - e.g Microsoft who paid
my mortgage off.





 From: Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com>
 To: Richard Michael Morrell <richard at linuxtec.co.uk>
 Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 02:05:59 -0800
 Subject: Re: [svlug] (forw) RE: (forw) Re: Time to dump those yahoo accounts

Quoting Richard Michael Morrell (richard at linuxtec.co.uk):

> Smoothwall Ltd had nothing to do with it, this predated Ltd's
> formation. 

Noted -- but _who_ specifically was unwilling to sue was irrelevant to
the point.

> I know Harold well - the GPL wouldn't stand up in the UK courts - it
> wouldn't get past go and thats a great shame.

Well, you might not know this, but _if_ you are correct that GPL
(whatever version) would be ruled invalid in (e.g.) UK courts, then
recipients of the covered work would end up, in any jurisdiction, having
_fewer_ rights than without it.   But that's really -- likewise --
entirely beside the relevant point:  Stripping authorship credit from a
copyright-covered work is very simply illegal per basic copyright law --
completely without regard to what licence (if any) was issued with it.

In the UK, this was most recently codified in the Copyright, Designs, and
Patents Act 1988 (as an import of the "moral rights" concept from the
Continent's civil law tradition), including a "right to object to false
attribution of a work" that continues an extra 20 years after the
creator's death.

> You can't "sue" IPcop - all you can say is they're a bunch of tossers
> who can use find and replace and removed our names from three years of
> attributed code and replaced it with copyright IPCop. 

There, you are simply incorrect:  If in fact they stripped any copyright
holder's authorship credit (copyright notice), then they violated
copyright law, and committed a very clear tort for which they could be
(1) enjoined from further such action, and (2) (probably) ordered to pay
damages.  Period.

> I only sue people I can make money from
> (http://www.dickmorrell.com/ms/settlement.pdf) - e.g Microsoft who
> paid my mortgage off. 

Well, that's a choice, then.  But don't say you _can't_ sue someone who
strips a copyright notice.  You most certainly can do that -- and win.