Re: [PROPOSAL] Full text of GPL must be included
On 2 Dec 2000, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> John Galt <galt@inconnu.isu.edu> writes:
>
> > See Wollensak v. Reiher, 115 U.S. 96, 99 (1885). See also USC Title 17,
> > section 507
> >
> > * (b) Civil Actions. - No civil action shall be maintained under the
> > provisions of this title unless it is commenced within three years
> > after the claim accrued.
> >
> > I think the claim's been sunset.
>
> This only applies to the particular defendant; it does not apply to
> others. Since the FSF isn't ever suing Debian, the point is moot
RMS is meeting with lawyers. You brought that tidbit up. What are we
supposed to think: he's there because he likes their office decor?
> here. The point is that by failing to pursue action here, the FSF
> might be granting implicit permission to anyone to do something
> similar. Debian probably isn't harming anybody, but EvilCorp might,
> and it's that one should be worried about.
So worry about them and quit bothering us.
> The section cited has nothing to do with the question of whether delay
> in prosecuting one defendant means that you are estopped from action
> against other similarly situated defendants, which is what I'm talking
> about.
So basically, this line means that it really does not matter what Debian
does, since it is quite probable that the FSF loses no rights to sue
others because of Debian's technical violation of the GPL.
> Similarly, the case you cited (Wanlass v. GE) is about laches in a
> patent case, and again, addresses whether a failure to sue a defendent
> promptly estops a later suit of that defendant. The answer the court
> gave was "yes", but that's not relevant here, because I'm talking
> about an inability to sue a different defendant, not the one you
> delayed in acting against.
>
> In fact, a patent case is totally not relevant here. The doctrine
> I'm citing is that if you ignore it when person A breaks your
> copyright, then you might lose the right to sue person B when they
> do. This is a general rule, not just one of copyrights. However, it
> is a rule that specifically does not apply to patents. If you ignore
> the fact that person A infringes your patent, you might lose the right
> to sue A, but you will never thereby lose the right to sue B.
The doctrine you're citing could have been that the moon was made of green
cheese for all of the citation you'd done in the past. Furthermore, there
is still 17USC507b: The FSF may be denied relief at all in the case of
Debian. It hardly seems right that where a statutory limit has been
reached, you are prevented relief against others. Basically, Debian is
now "grandfathered in" because of a snafu: EvilCorp is not. Go bother
EvilCorp.
> Thomas
>
--
CCI Power 6/40: one board, a megabyte of cache, and an attitude...
John Galt (galt@inconnu.isu.edu)
Reply to: