Re: Re: GPL/LGPL

Brian F. G. Bidulock wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Dec 2006, Ole Husgaard wrote:
>>Brian F. G. Bidulock wrote:
>>
>>>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.
> 
> I believe that in the US, if the software was registered with
> the US copyright office (really just one page) before the
> infringement, the holder is entitled to $100,000.00 USD without
> showing punitive damages.  Other than that, each side bears its
> own legal costs (in most states).

For quite some time there has been no requirement to register a
work with the US Copyright Office. Technically such a requirement
is a violation of the Berne Convention. Registration is, however,
useful as proof of ownership if ownership is disputed.

The amount you talk about here has been raised to US$150K, and
applies to willful infringement only. But this is a maximum, and
the court will only award the amount it considers just.

> So how do you feel about _your_ GPL'ed code (ldl) being
> distributed with LiS with not even so much as a copy of the GPL
> license?

I think it is a minor and unimportant issue. In all the GPL'ed
code I have released the copyright header at the top of each file
states that the code is under the GPL, and tells you where to
obtain the full text of the GPL.

Best Regards,

Ole Husgaard.