[FFmpeg-devel] to hijack or not to hijack (was: [PATCH] source snapshots back in action since a long time)

[Michael Niedermayer]

On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 06:07:14PM +0100, Attila Kinali wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 23:45:29 +0100
> Alexander Strasser <eclipse7 at gmx.net> wrote:
> 
> >   Hijacking the project server seems more provocative to me. I think
> > this also could have been known in advance.
> 
> I'd like to correct here a few things.
> 
> 1) Most of the infrastructure FFmpeg uses is owned and is paid by either
> Luca, Mans, my brother or me. How can someone hijack something he owns?

Let me give you a example:
You own a house and as a charity allow a family to life there.
One of that family over the years becomes famous for the art he creates.
And one night you kick them out and take over their name and gain fame from
pretending to be him. You leave his copyrights in place of course and work
within the license of the copyrighted work.
Do you see a moral problem here?
A legal problem?

Do you think the admins of the FSFs servers could take over the FSF and then
release a GPLv4 on the server that all GPL software can be changed to?
no?
is there maybe a legal issue with that takeover?
whats the difference to what you did ?

Do you think the admins of some Microsoft servers could take microsoft over and
pretend to be microsoft?
do you think trademark laws are the only thing that is broken there?


[... ]
-- 
Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

Into a blind darkness they enter who follow after the Ignorance,
they as if into a greater darkness enter who devote themselves
to the Knowledge alone. -- Isha Upanishad
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/attachments/20110302/5b6a2aa0/attachment.pgp>