Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!"

[amicus_curious]

"David Kastrup" <dak@gnu.org> wrote in message 
85k5afdi9y.fsf@lola.goethe.zz">news:85k5afdi9y.fsf@lola.goethe.zz...
> "amicus_curious" <ACDC@sti.net> writes:
>
> > "Hyman Rosen" <hyrosen@mail.com> wrote in message
> > news:uVDZk.17381$st1.3019@newsfe10.iad...
> > > David Kastrup wrote:
> > > > Why? Then the software would not be redistributable
> > >
> > > No, you don't understand. He thinks that any software that
> > > has already been released under the GPL may be freely used
> > > by anyone without restriction, because the permissions
> > > granted by the GPL apply even though its restrictions don't.
> > >
> > > It's as if he thinks he can go into a car dealership, listen
> > > to the salesman say "you can take this car if you pay me
> > > $35,000" and decide to observe the "you can take this car"
> > > part but ignore the "if you pay me $35,000" part. In the
> > > real world, this leads to unpleasant consequences, but the
> > > real world has very little to do with his fever dreams.
> >
> > In either case it would seem to be a violation of the contract terms.
>
> The GPL is not a contract but a license.  It spells the conditions you
> have to meet.
I am not aware of any real distinction in the law based on the use of the 
two terms, so amend my statement to say "In either case it would seem to be 
a violation of the terms of the agreement".

In both cases the agreements say "Upon receipt of value X from you I will 
provide a consideration Y."  And vice-versa.  Call it what you wish.

> > In your example, that is the only violation and when you do not pay
> > the $35,000 you are in violation of the contract and subject to being
> > sued for the amount
>
> Or other obligations.
Nothing else was mentioned in the hypothetical example.

> > agreed upon plus costs of collection which are clearly the damages
> > that would be incurred by the dealer.
> >
> > In the case of the GPL, it is not so clear.  If it is the same thing,
> > as you say, the suit would be for the damage caused to the original
> > author due to the violator not publishing the source code.
>
> Uh no.  Damages are in addition to coming into compliance.
I would rather think that they were the direct consequence of not coming 
into compliance.

> > How much would that be?  I think what the GPL proponents want to
> > happen is that the violation is termed as a copyright violation and
> > the violator denied the right to distribute.
>
> Since the GPL is a license, not a contract, it remains solely the
> violator's choice whether he wants to claim being in violence of the
> license terms (making use of the license) or in violation of copyright
> law (not making use of the license).
>
> > The more recent cases seem to have a small cash payment for the
> > plaintiff lawyers as well, but they have been settlements, not
> > judgements.
>
> Well, once the violator realises he has no leg to stand on, why would he
> not want to settle?
No one likes being sued and being in court.  If the problem can be made to 
go away for a nominal pittance, why bother to litigate?  It is like a 
panhandler confronting you on a Chicago street.  Give him a dollar and he 
will go away and pester the next person.  No one wants to confront the 
situation.  Apparently Verizon threatened to do just that and the panhandler 
scurried off.