et a la defendre. Exemple de sa prose extrement claire :
A propos de "tester" la GPL devant un tribunal :
"Because the GPL does not require any promises in return from licensees,
it does not need contract enforcement in order to work. A GPL licensor
doesn't say in the event of trouble "But, judge, the licensee promised
me he wouldn't do what he's doing now." The licensor plaintiff says
'Judge, the defendant is redistributing my copyrighted work without permission.'
The defendant can then either agree that he has no permission, in which case he loses,
or assert that his permission is the GPL, in which case he must
show that he is obeying its terms. A defendant cannot simultaneously
assert that the GPL is valid permission for his distribution and also
assert that it is not a valid copyright license, which is why defendants do not 'challenge' the GPL."
A propos de l'aspect viral de la GPL :
"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. "
[^] # Re: La culture libre dans Courrier International
Posté par kesako . En réponse à la dépêche La culture libre dans Courrier International. Évalué à 3.
A propos de "tester" la GPL devant un tribunal :
"Because the GPL does not require any promises in return from licensees,
it does not need contract enforcement in order to work. A GPL licensor
doesn't say in the event of trouble "But, judge, the licensee promised
me he wouldn't do what he's doing now." The licensor plaintiff says
'Judge, the defendant is redistributing my copyrighted work without permission.'
The defendant can then either agree that he has no permission, in which case he loses,
or assert that his permission is the GPL, in which case he must
show that he is obeying its terms. A defendant cannot simultaneously
assert that the GPL is valid permission for his distribution and also
assert that it is not a valid copyright license, which is why defendants do not 'challenge' the GPL."
A propos de l'aspect viral de la GPL :
"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. "