On Tue, Dec 14, 1999 at 04:27:42PM -0500, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > We have an "owner" who authored the software and holds the copypright > for something distributed under GPL, and a "copier" who has made a > copy of it.
Usually, what you're calling the owner is called the "author". Why choose different terminology, here? > If the copy is in violation of the GPL, then the owner can sue the > copier. He sues for violation of copyright--for making an illegal > copy--not for "violation of the GPL". The copier can defend himself by > proving that the GPL gave him permission to copy, and then the issue > will be about whether the copier complied with the GPL. But the actual > tort is copyright violation, not breach of contract. > > The owner hasn't gotten any "consideration", and therefore he hasn't > bound himself by contract, so the copier can't sue the owner. But so > what? What would he sue FOR? That's an interesting claim. While you might be right about there being no contract, it would have to be for some other reason: being granted copyright permission is something of value. -- Raul
