Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>>                                       if you choose not to comply with
>> licensing conditions, the license just does not apply.
>
> I'm just curious, what "automatically terminate" does
>
> http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2009/busybox-complaint-2009-12-14.pdf
>
> then talking about, in your view, oh paragon of GNUtardiness dak?

Narrows down the number of silly excuses one has to deal with in court.
Also gives some punch to deal with "feet-draggers" who come into
compliance once in court, but before settlement.  Without such a clause,
they would have little incentive to settle and pay the court costs of
the plaintiff.

I consider this clause somewhat problematic, since one can't terminate a
license before it has been established.  If a defendant wants to claim
copyright violation (for example, because the distributed code was put
there by an unauthorized party), he might end up facing punishment for
infringement (possibly stopping redistribution as one remedy) without
paying the plaintiffs legal expenses.

However, without such a clause, chances for monetary retrieval of such
costs appear even worse.  It's not a perfect shot, but probably better
than none at all.

-- 
David Kastrup