Re: SFLC files 2nd intimidation suit

[David Kastrup]

Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> writes:

> On 2007-11-21, rjack <danw6144@insightbb.com> wrote:
>> The designated donee beneficiaries of the GPL are obviously "all
>> third parties". Clearly the plaintiffs are "parties" to the GPL
>> contract and cannot be a member of the class "all third parties."
>> Therefore the plaintiffs can suffer no injury by the source code not
>> being made available to "all third parties".
>
> Their injury is the use of the copyrighted work in a manner that they
> have not agreed to.

That's not an injury.  That is just the base for complaint.  The injury
is a loss of reputation, a loss of job opportunity, a loss of potential
reciprocal contributions and even a potential loss of proprietary
licensing or at least proprietary contracts.

Basically you can ask "how much money did they save?"

Now the defendant might use the defense "but if we had been planning for
actually paying people rather than ripping them off, we would not have
started the project at all since it would not have been profitable
then".

But you better hire a darn brilliant lawyer if you want to get your
punishment reduced because you consistently and from the start relied on
a business plan involving defrauding the customers and misappropriating
copyrighted material.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum