You are right, i was unclear.
What i meant was, wouldnt he be interested in running a case to its full
fuition?
where out of court settlement were not a viable option?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Urwin"
To: "'Ethereal development'"
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 10:23 PM
Subject: RE: [Ethereal-dev] [Fwd: ClearSight Analyzer's use of
Etherealdecodeengine]
> > From: Ronnie Sahlberg [mailto:ronnie_sahlberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > 3, convince Eben Moglen that this is one of the most blatant
> > and clear cut
> > cases of GPL violation yet and might be the one
> > they need to get GPL verified in a court of law.
>
> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040226003735733
>
> Eben Moglen at Harvard Law School recently: (sorry about the length, but
I'm
> not abridging this masterful prose.)
>
> ...In order to defend yourself in a case in which you are infringing the
> freedom of free software, you have to be prepared to meet a call that I
make
> reasonably often with my colleagues at the Foundation who are here
tonight.
> That telephone call goes like this. "Mr. Potential Defendant, you are
> distributing my client's copyrighted work without permission. Please stop.
> And if you want to continue to distribute it, we'll help you to get back
> your distribution rights, which have terminated by your infringement, but
> you are going to have to do it the right way."
>
> At the moment that I make that call, the potential defendant's lawyer now
> has a choice. He can cooperate with us, or he can fight with us. And if he
> goes to court and fights with us, he will have a second choice before him.
> We will say to the judge, "Judge, Mr. Defendant has used our copyrighted
> work, copied it, modified it and distributed it without permission. Please
> make him stop."
>
> One thing that the defendant can say is, "You're right. I have no
license."
> Defendants do not want to say that, because if they say that they lose. So
> defendants, when they envision to themselves what they will say in court,
> realize that what they will say is, "But Judge, I do have a license. It's
> this here document, the GNU GPL. General Public License," at which point,
> because I know the license reasonably well, and I'm aware in what respect
he
> is breaking it, I will say, "Well, Judge, he had that license but he
> violated its terms and under Section 4 of it, when he violated its terms,
it
> stopped working for him."
>
> But notice that in order to survive moment one in a lawsuit over free
> software, it is the defendant who must wave the GPL. It is his permission,
> his master key to a lawsuit that lasts longer than a nanosecond. This,
quite
> simply, is the reason that lies behind the statement you have heard -- Mr.
> McBride made it here some weeks ago -- that there has never been a court
> test of the GPL.
>
> To those who like to say there has never been a court test of the GPL, I
> have one simple thing to say: Don't blame me. I was perfectly happy to
roll
> any time. It was the defendants who didn't want to do it. And when for ten
> solid years, people have turned down an opportunity to make a legal
> argument, guess what? It isn't any good.
> ...
>
> --
> Richard Urwin, Private
> "No 9000 series computer has ever made a mitsake or corrubiteddatatato."
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
> For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ethereal-dev mailing list
> Ethereal-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.ethereal.com/mailman/listinfo/ethereal-dev
>
