[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Imagine this scenario:
>
> OpenFoobar is released as GPL. Portions of his code are found in
> PostgreSQL. The new owner of OpenFoobar is an IP lawyer. They claim
> ownership of code "derived" from "his" code. There is now a valid, or
> at least legally arguable, argument that PostgreSQL now demands GPL
> source availability.
>
> I use PostgreSQL as a database foundation or my search-engine. Much of
> my system is open source, but there are portions which are not. If the
> IP lawyer is a competitor, he can force me to release my code.
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.
cheers
andrew
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
