The GPL Is a License, not a Contract

Posted Dec 4, 2003 15:37 UTC (Thu) by hippy (guest, #1488) [Link]

If this is true, which I have no reason to doubt, it would be very useful
to have the excellent explanation of the GPL provided in this article
recast in terms of the provisions of this convention.

I am a supporter of Free and Open Source Software and often find myself
explaining the GPL and its provisions to sceptical UK business people. It
is difficult to deal with some of the questions asked because all of the
good legal descriptions are written from the perspective of US law.

It appears clear that the GPL will be enforcible by legal systems in
countries that have signed the Berne convention. However this is only part
of the picture because the nature of the penalties for violation have only
been properly explored for US law. What are the likely penalties under UK,
Belgium, Russian etc. law? In this article, the answer to the FUD of "you
will be forced to GPL your proprietary code" is covered in terms of the
provisions of the US copyright act: "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." Is this true in other countries.

I am comfortable with use of the GPL in general but until it has been
tested in a UK (i.e. the one with jurisdiction over me) court I will still
be a little nervous.

Regards

Richard

PS. Thanks for a great article.