Re: Re: GPL/LGPL

Brian F. G. Bidulock wrote:
> IANAL, but in that case, it appears the plantiff got precisely
> what they asked of the German court.

To answer your question: I am not a lawyer, but I know quite a
bit about copyright law.

> 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.)

In most countries with copyright laws based on the continental
copyright tradition, the author may ask an infringer for financial
compensation even if the author had no monetary loss.

US copyright law is not based on the continental tradition, and
I am not sure if statutory damages apply if the copyright owner
had no monetary loss. But even if the copyright holder had no
monetary loss, he is entitled to the profits the infringer had
due to the infringement.

So a dual-licensed model is not a requirement for being awarded
damages. Those of us who write and distribute software under the
GPL/LGPL only also have ample opportunities. The reason we almost
never see GPL/LGPL infringement cases where damages or compensation
is awarded is that it is easier to stop the infringement when the
case isn't complicated by the question of damages.

Best Regards,

Ole Husgaard.