Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 21 Aug 2006 13:27:43 +0200 | From | Stefan Richter <> | Subject | Re: GPL Violation? |
| |
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/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |