Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

[rjack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > That PDF is dated May 14, 2008.
>  > Interestingly enough it predates June 25, 2008:
>
> Legal time is the very opposite of internet time.

I could certainly use time running backward for a few years. . .

> Delays and postponements of months at a time are
> routine. It should come as no surprise that actions
> by plaintiffs and defendants can cross each other,
> so that an action demanded by one in a filing has
> already been carried out by the other prior to the
> filing.
>
> Not only that, it is appropriate that distributors
> who have been distributing illegally should be forced
> to pay some monetary damages, even if only legal costs
> of the other side. 

I couldn't agree more about distributing illegally and violateing an 
*enforceable* copyright license.

An illegal toilet-paper license like the GPL is a whole 'nuther story. An now 
for the rest of the story. . .

> Otherwise, there is no penalty for
> distributing illegally up to the moment you are caught,
> and that would encourage non-compliance. The BSA works
> the same way - when you are caught using commercial
> software for which you did not pay, you have to pay for
> it and pay a fine. Otherwise many people would choose
> to use illegal copies because it would always be
> profitable to do so.

First you dis Microsoft and then you adopt the tactics of their primary license
enforcement organization. Are you a Microsoft shill in disguise?

Sincerely,
Rjack

-- "Whether express or implied, a license is a contract 'governed by ordinary 
principles of state contract law.'"; McCoy v. Mitsuboshi Cutlery, Inc., 67. F.3d 
917, (United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 1995) --

-- "Although the United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101- 1332, grants 
exclusive jurisdiction for infringement claims to the federal courts, those 
courts construe copyrights as contracts and turn to the relevant state law to 
interpret them."; Automation by Design, Inc. v. Raybestos Products Co., 463 F.3d 
749, (United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 2006) --