Re: [boost] [provocative] Whom did the SFC pay to list boostdevelopers as a whole in "Current Member Projects"?

Subject: Re: [boost] [provocative] Whom did the SFC pay to list boostdevelopers as a whole in "Current Member Projects"?
From: Alexander Terekhov (terekhov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-05-07 09:36:28

Andrew Sutton wrote:
[...]
> nice to know that we have a representative willing to sue Best Buy to
> protect the rights reserved by Boost contributors.

http://terekhov.de/178.pdf

"...
Conservancy Project Membership, 

http://sfconservancy.org/members/.....................................................................................3

Current Member Projects, http://sfconservancy.org/members/current/ (last
accessed February 9, 2011)....................4

Member Project Services, http://sfconservancy.org/members/services/
(last accessed February 9, 2011)..................4

[...]

The second Plaintiff is the Software Freedom Conservancy
(“Conservancy”), which is not an assignee of any registered copyright in
BusyBox. (Roberg-Perez Decl. Ex. A, at 86:23-87:10.) According to its
website, the Conservancy takes applications from “Free, Libre, and Open
Source Software (FLOSS) projects.”1 Projects whose applications are
“accepted” become a “Member Project” of the Conservancy.2 The
Conservancy then provides services, such as administrative support, and
it also provides a shield or “protection from personal liability for the
developers of the project.”3 The Conservancy’s web site advises that its
directors “believe strongly in the principles of software freedom” and
that they “oppose[] the notion of patents that cover software.”4 Thus,
the Conservancy is opposed to proprietary rights in software.

The Conservancy identifies BusyBox as a “Member Project,” without
identifying any particular individual or developer as a “member.”5
Indeed, there are multiple BusyBox authors who are not represented by
the Conservancy. (Roberg-Perez Decl. Ex. A, at 95:24-96:2,
102:9-104:22.) Thus, while the Conservancy claims that it has some kind
of enforcement rights in a BusyBox “Member Project,” and it seeks to
enjoin any use of any version of “BusyBox,” it does not represent all
the copyright owners in BusyBox.

On September 5, 2010, nine months after suit was filed, Mr. Andersen, “a
work from home father” (Motion, Dkt. No. 164 at 19), entered into an
“Amended and Restated Fiscal Sponsorship Agreement” (“Fiscal Sponsorship
Agreement”) with the Conservancy that provides that the Conservancy can
conduct “license compliance enforcement efforts” on behalf of “Projects”
— not members. (Roberg-Perez Decl. Ex. C, at 3, ¶ 5.) It explicitly
provides that recovered funds, or damages, obtained in enforcement
actions, be deposited in a “Project Fund,” and managed by the Plaintiffs
under precise terms. (Id. at ¶¶ 5-6.) Thus, both Plaintiffs in this case
contemplated monetary recoveries in enforcement actions, like this one.
The “Fiscal Sponsorship Agreement” does not contemplate that fiscal
recoveries would be insufficient to remedy any violations. Indeed, the
Fiscal Sponsorship Agreement, written after Plaintiffs sued Best Buy,
does not even consider that irreparable harm may arise from any alleged
non-compliance.

..."

regards,
alexander.

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm 
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can 
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards 
too, whereas GNU cannot.)