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

Re: LGPL module linked with a GPL lib

On 7/28/05, Michael K. Edwards <m.k.edwards@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/28/05, Raul Miller <moth.debian@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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).
> You still don't seem to understand what happened in that case.  The
> judge cited six reasons why it would be inappropriate to grant a
> preliminary injunction for breach of the GPL terms, any one of which
> would have been sufficient. 

I count four issues the judge considered, with a bit of detail on each
of those issues.

1) Likelihood of success:  Here, the judge discussed the dynamic
linking issue, said that MySQL would probably win, but that the issue
was in dispute.  

2) Potential for irreparable harm:  [This is what i was talking about.]
The judge listed a number of particulars about why irreparable harm
was not likely.  

Of particular importance were sworn statements made by Progress 
that the source code had been released and that the conflicting 
license requirements were being withdrawn.  (This is what I was
talking about, above -- the issue was basically resolved at the
time the judge wrote that order.)

Perhaps, when you say there were six reasons, you've broken
this issue down into several pieces?

3) balancing of relevant equities:  This favored Progress as 
suspending distribution of Gemini would have destroyed them.

4) the effect on the public interest: since the copyright issue
was basically resolved, this didn't get much discussion.

> And it was implicit in the structure of the decision that she rejected 
> both the notion that the GPL is a creature of copyright law and the 
> plea in Mr. Moglen's affidavit that the "automatic termination" 
> clause was central to its "enforcement".

Eh... it was explicit in the decision that the copyright breach had
largely been repaired.

So, yeah, in contexts where the breach is repaired, the automatic
termination clause can get ignored.

> Had she taken either of these propositions even a little bit
> seriously, she would (as she well knows) have been obliged to analyze
> the request for preliminary injunction according to a completely
> different standard.

This would be rather pointless given that Progress seemed to 
be committed to repairing the breech.

> > What's amazing are your repeated claims that the FSF
> > doesn't know what it's talking about, legally speaking.
> Oh, they may well know the truth (as I understand it); but if so, they
> do not choose to advertise their knowledge.  Alternately, if they have
> a foundation for their claims that my amateur archaeology has been
> unable to unearth, they seem to have no desire to expose it to public
> scrutiny.  Why should they, when widespread belief in the accuracy of
> their interpretation gets the job done anyway?

As usual, you're implying a lot with what you say, but actually saying
very little.


Reply to: