Re: Contract and Tort Law and the GPL
Just in case anyone was worried about this issue:
On 5/12/05, Michael K. Edwards <m.k.edwards@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/11/05, Raul Miller <moth.debian@gmail.com> wrote:
> > So it should be possible to treat the GPL as if an implicit contract
> > had been signed, and proceed from there, and the damages inflicted by
> > GPL violation in such cases could be substantial.
>
> Signed, schmigned. It's an offer of contract, duly accepted; there
> are few contract terms which cannot be found to exist in a court of
> fact without a signed written agreement, and nothing in the GPL
> (except perhaps the agency to sublicense which appears to me to be the
> only legal way to implement Section 6) falls into that category.
quoting http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/9915046.html
The parties also disputed whether Sun's suit was properly
considered as one for copyright infringement, as Sun con-
tended, or as one for breach of contract, as Microsoft con-
tended. The district court concluded that the claim was
properly considered as an infringement action, thereby enti-
tling Sun to a presumption of irreparable harm.
It looks to me as if at least some courts will make a distinction
between breach of contract and copyright infringement.
--
Raul
Reply to: