[copyleft-next] fixing the record on my role [was Re: [MERGE REQUEST] restore "install and run" text (was Re: app-stores and copyleft-next)]

Luis Villa luis at tieguy.org
Wed Dec 5 02:59:30 UTC 2012


On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Richard Fontana <fontana at sharpeleven.org> wrote:
> On 12/03/2012 03:59 PM, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
>> TL;DR: Fontana, please accept the merge request at
>>        https://gitorious.org/copyleft-next/copyleft-next/merge_requests/25
>>        to restore the "install and run" wording until such time as
>>        community consensus is reached regarding a compromise of which
>>        users should actually get the freedom to install modified
>>        versions.
> [...]
>> I'm sorry to see that Richard has removed it at Luis' behest without any
>> discussion about the issue.
>
> I didn't remove it at Luis's behest - he never suggested that it be
> removed (AFAICR). I'd be happy to have further discussion about the issue.
>

For the record, I'll confirm Richard's recollection: at no point
(publicly or privately, implicitly or explicitly) did I request this
removal. If anything, my emails on the subject were supportive of
inclusion:

* My previous draft of this language, sent to this list on Aug. 5th,
aimed to remove verbs I felt were superfluous or ill-defined but
specifically retained "run" and "install."

* My recent email described platforms that allow running and
installation of modified versions as "rights-respecting" and referred
to the text in question as "anti-lockdown."

Tangentially, but also for the record: I am participating in this list
purely on my own time and out of my own interests. Neither my clients
nor my firm are paying me to be here, nor have I discussed
copyleft-next with them. Should a client ever ask me to take an
advocacy position here, I would disclose that I was acting on behalf
of a client, and any email relating to such advocacy would come from
villalu at gtlaw.com.

Luis


More information about the copyleft-next mailing list