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

Re: LGPL module linked with a GPL lib

On 7/27/05, Michael K. Edwards <m.k.edwards@gmail.com> wrote:
> Whether or not that agreement purports to bind a developer in ways
> that copyright law does not, there are limits to what terms a court
> will permit in a contract of adhesion. 


Then again, the penalties I'd expect the court to apply against
someone violating the GPL are relatively mild.

Your thesis seems to be that the court will not apply harsh
penalties -- and I have no problem with that.  But you might
consider that the people you claim are making mistakes 
probably were not thinking that those harsh penalties would
apply in the first place.

For example, take Progress v. MySql -- here, the "stop
distribution" penalty was not used in part because Progress 
didn't have anything else -- it would have been destroyed
by this penalty.  And, Progress had agreed in court to release 
their software under other terms.  This is purely a practical
issue (as you'd expect from a preliminary injunction).

Anyways, having the restricted software released under 
GPL compatible terms is the desired outcome -- this is 
expressed in the GPL, and this has been stated 
repeatedly by the FSF.

What's amazing are your repeated claims that the FSF 
doesn't know what it's talking about, legally speaking.


Reply to: