Why GPL-licensed code is dangerous for businesses to use

[Kuciwalker]

And in this specific case I would expect the court to assess monetary damages.

My point was that even the potential for the copyright holder to do so results in a translation into monetary damages.

[KrazyHorse]

I doubt your legal expertise. Then again, I doubt mine as well. Do you have a precedent in mind?

[Kuciwalker]

I'm going to run up and ask my dad.

[Krill]

Think about that for a second, kid.

With music YOU DO NOT HAVE A LICENSE TO REDISTRIBUTE AT ALL. The code isn't under license wrt you. You have NO right to redistribute. Static linking would be a form of redistributition.

The GPL GRANTS you additional rights, including the right to redistribute the code and/or derivative works [e.g. static linking] if certain conditions are met, e.g. you license the redistributed work under the GPL as well.

"I never saw the license" at best makes you guilty of a copyright violation instead of a license violation.

Consider music played on a car stereo as you sit in traffic. Others here it as they walk past your car.

AHs the argument finished yet?

[Kuciwalker]

I'm going to run up and ask my dad.

Keep in mind my dad INAIPL.

A few of points he made:

1) to get non-monetary damages the plaintiff has to get into a court of equity, which requires he show that no legal relief is adequate.

2) The court of equity will design a remedy to "do the most good and the least harm while respecting the rights of the plaintiff". An example he brought up was the RIM patent case: the patent-holder sued RIM and asked for an injunction preventing the use of the patent in RIM's code (effectively disabling all Blackberries). The federal gov't filed an amicus brief arguing that this would substantially impair the operations of the gov't, and when the court ordered the injunction they specifically exempted all Blackberries used by gov't employees.

3) He wasn't sure "I would like more code to be open source" was even a reasonable grounds for standing, let alone a reasonable grounds for equitable relief.

edit: clarification:
In the US federal system there is not generally a distinction between courts of law and equity, in the sense that they don't have a divided bench, but the law does maintain the distinction between legal remedies (i.e. monetary damages) and equitable remedies.

[Asher]

Not sure why you are still arguing this. Google around the 'net some more.

The GPL is generally accepted to be valid, which is why no one fights it in court. The terms are unambiguous and well-known.

[MORON]

If I'm reading this right, I wonder what this do for bargaining positions of programmer when they have the potential to seed something that destroys the project's value on one go.

They need to be kept either happy or very unemployed, I guess...