[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Software Freedom Law Center

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Software Freedom Conservancy is a separate organization

[edit]

As a director and president of Software Freedom Conservancy, I'm admittedly a biased party, but it seems to me wholly incorrect that Software Freedom Conservancy's entry merely directs here. Conservancy is a wholly separate organization, with its own incorporation in the State of New York, Federal 501(c)(3) status, Board of Directors, and president. It's accurate to say that SFLC helped start Conservancy, but implying they are the same org with a direct redirection is wholly inaccurate and misleading. -- bkuhn 00:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Needs work. Mike Linksvayer (talk) 20:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Justification Please!

[edit]

Can someone justify this:

"Some of the areas the center has been looking at include clarifying the GPL in relation to loadable kernel modules in Linux"

The loadable modules problem stems from copyright law being unclear, not from anything in the GPL. The GPL cannot be "clarified" on this issue - unless it's to exclude loadable modules from the requirements of the GPL, and I know Moglen/SFLC will not do that. I'll remove that sentence from the article when I come back next if there's no good justification. Gronky 21:28, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Done. Gronky 17:18, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the Jim Garrison you want, move along, move along...

[edit]

The wikilink to Jim Garrison leads to the New Orleans attorney of whom Oliver Stone made his big film about. I seriously doubt that is who was intended here ;-). OTOH, I don't know what would the best way be to discern between the two, in terms of link-formulation. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 03:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Compliance

[edit]

When discussing the settlements, it's important to note (in addition to the monetary payment), that the company agreed to comply with the GPL. This is one of the main reasons SFLC is conducting the lawsuits. Superm401 - Talk 08:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Case History

[edit]

If the SFLC has won or settled every single case with the result of the defendant complying with the GPL, this is notable and should be expressly stated in the article, even if it's just the BusyBox litigation. Not many law firms have never lost a case. If they have lost any, this is also notable and should be included. -kslays (talk • contribs) 00:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Software Freedom Law Center. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:59, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Software_Freedom_Law_Center&oldid=1205462380"