Re: "GPL requirement could have a chilling effect on derivative distros"

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:

> Forgot one thing...
>
> David Kastrup wrote:
>> 
>> Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:
>> 
>> > Karen Hill wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "I think, of the 500 distributions tracked by DistroWatch, probably 450
>> >> of them are in trouble right now per this position.",
>> >
>> > Criminal penalties (costs plus attorney's fees in a civil action
>> > aside for a moment), per FSF's own theory of enforcement through
>> > cause of action for copyright infringement (not breach of
>> > contract claim),
>
> [...]
>
>> For whom?  A "criminal penalty" is not handed over to a prospective
>> plaintiff in a contract case.
>
> Sorry, dak. (Oh dear, I still can't believe that you now realize that 
> Moglen is a bullshit rapper.)

You are fantasizing.  Again: licenses _are_ held to the standards of
contracts concerning the evaluation of the compliance with its terms.
Where they are _not_ held to the standard of contracts is where the
consent of the licensee is concerned: the licensee can't escape the
requirements of the license by claiming non-agreement.  There is no
requirement for a signature or similar stuff.  I actually meant to
write "civil case" above.  That's more accurate, even though
concerning the check for compliance with terms there is no difference
to a contract case.

> I meant
>
>    Criminal penalties (costs plus attorney's fees in a civil action) 
>    aside for a moment, ...
>
> not
>
>    Criminal penalties (costs plus attorney's fees in a civil action 
>    aside for a moment), ...
>
> Just a typo, but what an Eagle Eye you have dear, good capture. ;-)

Whatever.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum