zlacker

I see this attitude a lot where legal is involved (which is a lot of places). It's a very peculiar sort of "if this then that" which seems to subvert normal human communication. E.g. in this case, a standard human train of thought would be that, because one of the reasons given for not pursuing it is funding, the EFF might offer to fund this person, who, circumstances now being different, might then agree to be the defendant. Now maybe there is a problem with that, but my point is that your response seems to choose not to acknowledge it. I don't think it's malicious - I think there is just something about the way legal works that trains people to think and speak in this slightly non-human way.

>>happyt+(OP)
In my perspective, it's less about the presentation, and more about the motivations involved.

If the EFF is motivated to reach out to the original DMCA recipient, then they could definitely present this avenue. That leads us to the next question, is the original DMCA recipient interested in pursuing a (now funded) defense? If not, are they interested in handing it off to someone else? Who? Would that person be an effective defendant?

Really, what we are doing here is speculating on one person's level of disinterest in pursuing the legal defense of their work.

>>thomas+32
What about another person willing to continue with a fork?

What about a DAO specifically built for that purpose exclusively?

Just looking how to fuck back those lawyers

>>tough+8h
I would love to see that happen. I also, unfortunately, doubt it will.

>>thomas+Iq
Seems it would require to fork the whole home assistant repo https://github.com/home-assistant/core/pull/101849#issuecomm...