On 7/27/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Whether or not that agreement purports to bind a developer in ways > that copyright law does not, there are limits to what terms a court > will permit in a contract of adhesion.
Agreed. Then again, the penalties I'd expect the court to apply against someone violating the GPL are relatively mild. Your thesis seems to be that the court will not apply harsh penalties -- and I have no problem with that. But you might consider that the people you claim are making mistakes probably were not thinking that those harsh penalties would apply in the first place. For example, take Progress v. MySql -- here, the "stop distribution" penalty was not used in part because Progress didn't have anything else -- it would have been destroyed by this penalty. And, Progress had agreed in court to release their software under other terms. This is purely a practical issue (as you'd expect from a preliminary injunction). Anyways, having the restricted software released under GPL compatible terms is the desired outcome -- this is expressed in the GPL, and this has been stated repeatedly by the FSF. What's amazing are your repeated claims that the FSF doesn't know what it's talking about, legally speaking. -- Raul
