On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 03:10:54PM -0600, Gerald Combs wrote:
> - Eben thinks we have a strong case. Since Ethereal is a required
> component for a fully-functioning version of ClearSight Analyzer
> (CSA), this falls well within the definition of a combined work and
> they are therefore in violation of the GPL. Their source
> distribution may be in violation as well, which I'll discuss below.
>
> - We have several options available, litigation-wise. We can seek an
> injuction against ClearSight which would prevent them from shipping
> CSA in its current form. We can seek damages. We can try to have
> the source for CSA opened under the GPL or a GPL-compatible license.
>
> - Should we decide to seek an injunction, it would likely cost 25,000
> to 30,000 USD.
Does that mean immediately proceeding to court, or do they first get a
letter from a lawyer such as Eben stating "we're going to try to get an
injunction against you - call us if you want to settle out of court?"
> In order to proceed with this, Ethereal's copyright holders need to
> agree on a final objective. Do we simply want ClearSight to stop
> infringement? Do we want them to open the source of Analyzer? Do we
> want damages? Should they be allowed to keep doing what they're
> doing, provided they pay a licensing fee?
*Personally*:
I definitely want them to stop infringement;
presumably opening the source of Analyzer isn't the only way
that they could do that - they could also perhaps run Ethereal
"at arm's length" rather than linking it into Analyzer, and I
wouldn't *require* them to open the source *if* they're willing
to change it not to link Ethereal code in;
I'm not sure whether I'd want damages, although getting them to
pay our court costs if they lose would be good;
I don't think it'd be right to let them pay a licensing fee
unless we all decide to dual-license Ethereal - if there's a
consensus for that, I wouldn't necessarily object, but I
wouldn't advocate dual-licensing it myself.
