Re: linux gpl question
On Friday 26 April 2002 01:45, David Starner wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 01:29:57AM -0500, Lynn Winebarger wrote:
> > Actually he can copy all he wants without complying with the GPL.
> > It would take a court to actually force him to comply with the license and/or
> That's sort of like saying he can kill all he wants to; it would take a
> court to actually force him to comply with law. In either case, he is
> violating the law.
In one case the police will probably come after him (assuming they
figure out who it was). Here the copyright holders have to come after
him. There's a substantial difference.
> > He still has some rights to his derivative work, they
> > aren't completely held by the original authors, so it would be a mistake
> > to treat the derivative work as GPL'ed and copy it before the court forced
> > license compliance
> Not much of a mistake; unless he made clear that it wasn't GPLed, you
> could reasonably claim that you made the assumption that he was acting
> legally. Most judges aren't amused with cases where the plaintiff was
> acting illegally and not in good faith.
Do you really want to be in the position of having to make such a claim?
> > (assuming it chose to).
> A judge that doesn't enforce the clear law - and there would be no legal
Actually, I wasn't referring to chosing to enforce the law, but
determining the penalty. They might make them distribute the patched
version under GPL, or they might make them pay monetary damages and
order existent copies destroyed. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know the full
range of a judge's discretion. However, the latter is the usual way to deal
with copyright infringement (at least it's in statute itself). They might do
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org