Talk:Software Freedom Law Center

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Law (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon


This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Free Software / Software / Computing  (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Free Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of free software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Software.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.
 

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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 (talkcontribs) 00:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)