Re: GPL Violation?

[Stefan Richter <stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de>]

Helge Hafting wrote:
[...]
> Yes the GPL is a licence. By using the code, they have accepted
> the licence.  If I use a copy of windows, I'll be forced to pay.
> The reason courts usually award monetary damages is that
> money is what almost everybody wants.  Commercial software,
> books, CDs, DVSs are all traded for money, so copying one
> means you must pay the copyright holder's loss.
> 
> The GPL should work exactly the same way: You distribute
> software derived from GPL software, you pay the usual price.
> But the usual price for GPLed software is not money,
> the usual price is the derived source.
[...]
> if someone tries to be difficult, I hope
> they'll be forced to pay the usual price - which isn't money.
> It'd be hard to set a price anyway, given that GPL software
> isn't usually sold.  The price of having a professional programmer
> developing the same driver perhaps?

There may also be damage due to unfair competition. But then the
plaintiff probably had to be a competitor (or perhaps a body that is
generally entitled to go against unfair competition, if such a body
exists anywhere). The copyright holders of relevant parts of Linux may
sometimes not be competitors to the violator.
-- 
Stefan Richter
-=====-=-==- =--- =-=-=
http://arcgraph.de/sr/