[Top][All Lists]

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

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

From: rjack
Subject: Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 09:48:40 -0400
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20080421)

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

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?


-- "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. ยงยง 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) --

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]