Just in case anyone was worried about this issue: On 5/12/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 5/11/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > So it should be possible to treat the GPL as if an implicit contract > > had been signed, and proceed from there, and the damages inflicted by > > GPL violation in such cases could be substantial. > > Signed, schmigned. It's an offer of contract, duly accepted; there > are few contract terms which cannot be found to exist in a court of > fact without a signed written agreement, and nothing in the GPL > (except perhaps the agency to sublicense which appears to me to be the > only legal way to implement Section 6) falls into that category.
quoting http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/9915046.html The parties also disputed whether Sun's suit was properly considered as one for copyright infringement, as Sun con- tended, or as one for breach of contract, as Microsoft con- tended. The district court concluded that the claim was properly considered as an infringement action, thereby enti- tling Sun to a presumption of irreparable harm. It looks to me as if at least some courts will make a distinction between breach of contract and copyright infringement. -- Raul
