misc.int-property Google Group

Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

c.c.ei...@xrexxsflcx.usenet.us.com (Rahul Dhesi) — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 21:49:36 UT

Not a good analogy. The child as beneficiary to a contract could almost
certainly enforce it. (Although, of course, it would have to find some
other parent or guardian to represent it in court, if you failed to do
so yourself.)

Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

c.c.ei...@xrexxsflcx.usenet.us.com (Rahul Dhesi) — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 21:46:36 UT

The SFLC says it differently. Their GPL enforcement always seeks some
sort of penalty for the offender that goes far beyond simply making GPL
sources available. Otherwise future defendants would have no incentive
to not violate the GPL in the first place.

Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

d...@gnu.org (David Kastrup) — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 21:16:12 UT

No. The copyright owner has the right to demand that the buyer gets the
source. The buyer does not have this right.
If I pay at a merry-go-round for a ride of my child, the child does not
get the right to demand a ride. _I_ get the right to demand that it
gets a ride.
The GPL is targeted at _effectively_ providing the buyers of software

Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

hyro...@mail.com (Hyman Rosen) — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 21:10:46 UT

<[link]>
TFTP Listing of /GPL/ at ftp.supermicro.com
Parent Directory
Jul 08 2008 12:02 74165878 ipmi_ppc_opensrc.tgz
Jul 17 2008 11:17 10212 lib_smc_usb_lcd_linux.tgz
Brand spanking new files.

Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

terek...@web.de (Alexander Terekhov) — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 20:42:17 UT

[...]
I've just visited
[link]
and entered "GPL" in "Home Contact Us Advanced Search" field. Clicking
on "Search" button yielded
-----
Supermicro Search Results
Home
Contact Us
Advanced Search

We are sorry. Your search yielded zero results. Please go back and try
again.

Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

hyro...@mail.com (Hyman Rosen) — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 20:30:14 UT

> being negative to Busybox.
That could be true. Perhaps Busybox and the SFLC are
so eager to enforce GPL compliance that they don't
mind paying a little bit of money to help it along.
But I doubt it.

Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

hyro...@mail.com (Hyman Rosen) — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 20:20:36 UT

Sure. And it could be "your [Supermicro] attorneys have to
buy us [Busybox] ice cream sundaes for a year". That's what
undisclosed means.
But as usual, we have (1) GPL violation, (2) SFLC files suit,
(3) suit ends, (4) GPLed sources made available. That's what
GPL enforcement is all about.

Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

hyro...@mail.com (Hyman Rosen) — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 20:09:51 UT

I really have no idea what you're getting at. The SFLC
sues for GPL violations, they settle, the defendants
agree to comply with the GPL and try to make good their
previous violations, and some money changes hands.
Your interest in knowing every last detail of the
settlement doesn't obligate anyone to tell them to you.

Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

hyro...@mail.com (Hyman Rosen) — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 19:56:46 UT

Exactly as I said would happen. There's no need for scare quotes
around the word. The settlement involves the defendant making the
GPLed sources available, just as they should.

Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

terek...@web.de (Alexander Terekhov) — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 19:34:56 UT

You seem to overlook the case of monetary amount being negative to
Busybox. I mean negative as in
"you [Busybox] don't have to pay our [Supermicro] attorneys' fees in the
amount of $... except mandatory nominal damages in the amount of $1".
Why not?
That is a valid consideration to compensate Busybox developers to

Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

terek...@web.de (Alexander Terekhov) — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:45:35 UT

Right.
[link]
"an undisclosed amount of financial consideration"
Could it be that "an undisclosed amount of financial consideration" is
actually "you [Busybox] don't have to pay our [Supermicro] attorneys'
fees in the amount of $..."?
[link]

Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

c.c.ei...@xrexxsflcx.usenet.us.com (Rahul Dhesi) — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:34:34 UT

So we agree that they have something to hide. And you seem to be
contradicting yourself, sometimes arguing they have nothing to hide,
sometimes conceding that they do.
There may be good reasons to hide the monetary amount. If it's large
(e.g., SFLC gets $10 million), it makes the defendant look bad (akin to

Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

terek...@web.de (Alexander Terekhov) — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 17:59:06 UT

ROFL!
Yet another delay ("07/16/2008 3 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge
Richard M. Berman from Daniel B. Ravicher dated 7/14/08") AND blog
announcement of yet another "settlement."
(from PACER... final order is not yet available on PACER as of
07/24/2008 13:55:26 ET)
------
U.S. District Court
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York

Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

hyro...@mail.com (Hyman Rosen) — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 17:55:31 UT

No. They are hiding the exact monetary amounts involved,
for example, and there may be other things as well. We
know only what both sides have agreed should be made
public. One of those things is that the defendants have
agreed to comply with the GPL, which is the goal of the
SFLC.

Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

c.c.ei...@xrexxsflcx.usenet.us.com (Rahul Dhesi) — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 17:30:29 UT

Your essential argument is that although they are hiding the actual
settlement, they are not hiding anything within it. To me, this
argument seems logically absurd, especially because the settlement in
question intends to further the cause of open source software. The SFLC
is not just one more typical private party making private agreements --