Re: Re: GPL/LGPL
"Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email protected]> Tue, 5 Dec 2006 15:28:23 -0700
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.kernel.streams |
|---|---|
| Organization | http://www.openss7.org/ |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Steve, IANAL, but in that case, it appears the plantiff got precisely what they asked of the German court. Running under a dual-licensed model, I could ask for punitive damages from lost royalties as well. (Also described at http://www.gpl-violations.org/ -- the applicant in the Fortinet action.) =09 Perhaps we will get a chance yet to test your legal theories in Ontario court. --brian On Tue, 05 Dec 2006, Steve Schefter wrote: > > For example, in the Fortinet case, the court imposed an injunction > "banning them from further distribution of their products until > they are in compliance with the GNU GPL conditions". Fortinet > today distributes products using GPL code. The difference is > that they started including a copy of the licence and making > source available. >=20 --=20 Brian F. G. Bidulock =A6 The reasonable man adapts himself to the =A6 [email protected] =A6 world; the unreasonable one persists in =A6 http://www.openss7.org/ =A6 trying to adapt the world to himself. =A6 =A6 Therefore all progress depends on the =A6 =A6 unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw =A6