Re: Dell vs. GPL

[Thomas Dodd]

Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Thursday 10 July 2003 10:41, Thomas Dodd wrote:
> 
>>Miles Bader wrote:
>>
>>>Thomas Dodd <[e-mail]> writes:
>>>
>>>>Either license would still reguire registration for enforcement.
>>>>But the _new_ license, like OSL, would "will have teeth to
>>>>defend", and stand up in court since the GPL didn't.
>>>
>>>Why?  If the court loss was due to a lack of registration, the
>>>content of the license has no relevance -- _any_ license would
>>>lose in that situation.
> 
> 
> What court loss?

The hypothetical one that Andre was talking about. See below.

>>Where did you get that the "loss was due to a lack of registration"
>>?
>>
>>From Andre's 6/29 message:
>>
>>>I am in the process of getting the formal registered copyright.
>>>
>>>I will take GPL to court and will not settle out of court.
>>>GPL will live or die in this case, I do not give a damn which way
>>>it falls.
>>>
>>>GPL wins great.
>>>GPL loses, maybe better so it can be replaced with OSL and then
>>>it gets serious because we will have teeth to defend the ideas
>>>of open source.

Here Andre was discussing his current case. He is in the process of
registering his copyright. Once that done he plans to go to court. He
says he will not settle out of court, so the GPL _WILL BE_ tested in
this case.

The next 2 lines should have started with "If" to be correct, but it was
clear from context. He was discussing the 2 possible outcomes.
1) The GPL is enforcable, and he wins.
2) The GPL is not enforcable, he looses, and the GPL _will need to be_
replaced. He then suggests the OSL as a more enforcable license.

> And where can a person view this 'replacement' GPL, called OSL?

Already answered, but here http://www.opensource.org/licenses/osl.php

	-Thomas