Posted on 06/03/2008 12:15:33 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
Nothing in anything I have ever said could possibly be interpreted to mean that I want companies to be forced to give away software. I am for freedom, freedom to give stuff away or to charge for it, depending on the business strategy of the company providing it.
From what I read, the Wallace case doesn't do anything to uphold the validity of the GPL license. That case just established that GPL does not violate antitrust laws.
I want to see a copyright infringement case filed by FSF that has gone to an appellate court and has been won by FSF. I don't think it exists. That the defendants in these cases have settled means nothing. They are often settling for less than the cost of defending the case.
He is the founder and president, but other than that, he is not the FSF. And they are not a huge organization.
OK, then we are in agreement- but if you look carefully you will see that THAT is exactly what this open source guru wants- free software like free health care. Paid for by goivernemtn progran and special tax on everyone.
*shudder*
There were two cases. In both Wallace was unable to make a proper claim of injury. In the second the judge said such effort was futile. What this says to me is that there is no solid legal argument that can be made for claiming anti-trust issues against open source.
Microsoft SharePoint Learning Kit. License: Microsoft Public License (approved as an open source license by the Open Source Initiative). Download source
There are more.
Only in Germany, a few times IIRC. Everyone here has settled when confronted, even Cisco with megabucks to pay for defense lawyers to pick apart the GPL and swoop down on the relatively poorly-funded FSF. One case recently got very close to trial, but they settled just before.
None of those were on nuances of "derivative" with linking to GPL products that might have been argued in court. They were full-on redistribution of GPL software without meeting the terms of the license. Since meeting the terms is the only thing that grants redistribution rights, I don't see any way possible of beating that in a court.
Thanks. From my discussion with attorneys, I can tell you that settlement of a civil suit in no way means that the defendant has a poor case. Depending on the settlement amount, it can just as easily mean that the plaintiff has a poor case.
I interpret FSF's tendency to settle as a fear of taking this to court. If the license is so airtight, then take it to court and get a favorable precedent. They are afraid to do so. They would rather maintain the license by suing companies, knowing that the companies will deal with this problem from a risk management approach. They can then settle for confidental, but small amounts.
Let's say a company has a potential of a judgement against them of $10 million. If they get a settlement offer of $500,000, I imagine they would take that offer every time.
In Germany they've had no problem taking it to court, with a 100% success rate in and out of court. Their first try in court got to a granted preliminary injunction, then the infringer settled. The second went fully through trial, resulting in a ruling in 2006, compliance plus the sought-after enforcement expenses and attorney fees (no punitive damages were sought).
They would rather maintain the license by suing companies, knowing that the companies will deal with this problem from a risk management approach. They can then settle for confidental, but small amounts.
It first usually involves a simple email request to comply with the license. Most get worked out at that stage. Only if the company refuses do they talk about taking it to court, then it usually gets settled. There wasn't even any formal compliance organization in the FSF until 2003, and a big part of its mission is education to avoid any enforcement. The first lawsuit ever filed in the US was in 2007 because Monsoon refused to comply with the license and wouldn't negotiate.
It's not viewed as a machine for making money, but a machine for keeping software free (since there's no actual monetary loss from the infringement). Most GPL authors follow this. So the normal motivations you talk about don't really apply. Remember, in the above success in court they only asked for reimbursement for expenses.
It seems like that refusal to learn anything is coming back to haunt you in debate.
This, to me seems foolish.. So long as the company releases their GPL code modifications who cares if their hardware is locked?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.