This Is Absurd.

Posted Dec 3, 2015 7:29 UTC (Thu) by ncm (guest, #165)
In reply to: This Is Absurd. by ssmith32
Parent article: A referendum on GPL enforcement

Legally, the case is the same: violation is a pretty simple matter of fact -- either they complied or didn't. The difference is how easy it is to get them to settle without going to court, or how nasty they will be in fighting the case. Some judges may be confused about the notion of "damages" as if it were a contract, not a copyright case, but the law is pretty clear about penalty amounts for willful violations. In any case, the right to make somebody stop distributing their product because they have lost their license can be a pretty big stick. Letting them continue shipping after coming into compliance is a choice, not an obligation.

This Is Absurd.

Posted Dec 3, 2015 8:33 UTC (Thu) by philh (subscriber, #14797) [Link]

> Legally, the case is the same: violation is a pretty simple matter of fact

Have you noticed how "simple" the facts were to establish in e.g. the SCO case, or the current VMware case?

> but the law is pretty clear about penalty amounts for willful violations.

AFAIK "willful" is a concept that is meaningful only to US courts, where (in some cases) it is a reason to triple damages, but for that to provide any clarity one would need to have some expectation of the damages before they were to be tripled. Some courts seem to have been befuddled by the fact that Free Software does not have a per-copy fee, and so have been unable to come up with sensible damages.

It is generally considered better for all involved if violators learn to comply, as that means that their future products might continue to comply. Setting up a perverse incentive for the SFC to do a less constructive thing in order to gain income hardly seems like a good idea.

Anyway, I've already voted with my wallet ... please do likewise.