[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Corel Lawsuit

From: Peter S Galbraith <GalbraithP@dfo-mpo.gc.ca>
> Strange that you see this `End User License Agrrement' page if
> youclick on their own download page, but if if you click on the
> middle icon to take you to ftp://ftp.linuxberg.com/pub/distributions/Corel/ 
> or the left button to CNET download.
> They are clueless, but are you serious about a lawsuit?

Perhaps not _this_ time, but I am throwing up my hands because I have no way
to keep them from doing something much more clueless next time and then a suit
may indeed be necessary.

You can tell I'm frustrated. It's because I tried to smooth these things
out _twice_ so far, first with the beta license, and again with the APT
license issue. Dan Quinlan and I discussed their advisory board at Comdex.
The board met once, and never again.

A lot of the software contributors were legal minors at the time they
contributed the software, and some of them still are, and Corel accepted
_their_ licenses. Should those contributors now turn around and say they
had no legal right to give Corel those licenses and thus they are void?
Or shall we assume that they had the collusion of their parent or guardian
and thus the licenses are legal, in which case Corel should make the same
assumption in their license?

I am trying to explain to them that they are distributing somebody else's
software, and they keep unintentionally, and with no malice involved, pissing
off the very people who wrote their system. And when I explained this to their
P.R. person at Corel, it was clear that she thought the developers were
whining children and didn't want to concern herself with them. OK, some of
them really _are_ children, but Corel bought that headache when they decided
to make use of their code.



Reply to: