Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> This is a common misconception. It ain't so. According to Eblen Moglen:
>
>
> "The claim that a GPL violation could lead to the forcing open of
> proprietary code that has wrongfully included GPL'd components is simply
> wrong. There is no provision in the Copyright Act to require distribution
> of infringing work on altered terms. What copyright plaintiffs are
> entitled to, under the Act, are damages, injunctions to prevent infringing
> distribution, and--where appropriate--attorneys' fees. A defendant found
> to have wrongfully included GPL'd code in its own proprietary work can be
> mulcted in damages for the distribution that has already occurred, and
> prevented from distributing its product further. That's a sufficient
> disincentive to make wrongful use of GPL'd program code. And it is all
> that the Copyright Act permits."
>
> I have mixed feelings about the GPL myself, but I hate seeing this FUD so
> frequently.
>
> In any case, the whole thing that kicked off this discussion is *not* GPL
> software. So let's get on with our business.
Of course, but the FSF has agreed to drop litigation in some cases if
the proprietary software is released as open source. He is right that
that moving to GPL isn't a legal remedy, but more of a negotiated
settlement. So that is why that idea gets thrown around, so I wouldn't
call it totally FUD.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073