On Mar 16, 5:20 pm, Rjack <[email protected]> wrote: > Doctor Smith wrote: > > On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 13:22:44 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:
> > The problem with the GPL fanatics is that choice is only good when you make > > the same choices that *they* make. > > Have a conflicting or differing opinion and they will come after you like > > rabid dogs on the attack. > Yeh... A rabid dog attack *and* an automatic voluntary dismissal to > any federal suit they file. FSF and OSS authors and contributors have the same rights an Microsoft and it's employees, the right to set the terms of the copyright license and to enforce that copyright license through the courts if necessary. If you don't want to pay $400/employee for Microsoft Office professional, then don't, but don't STEAL their software buy trying to buy OEM personal licenses or educational licenses then using them for BUSINESS purposes. You've violated the license, Microsoft SHOULD be allowed to sue you. If you're smart, you'll accept almost any settlement they offer, including promises to commit crimes against other companies, such as agreeing to exclude competitors. The alternative is $150,000 PER OFFENSE, which could be every single copy of Office used illegally. The same goes for those who illegally use MSDN promotional code for consulting. If you want to use Microsoft's software, then you are obligated to accept Microsoft's license terms. The only exception is that Microsoft can't ask you to do anything illegal. For example, if they asked you to murder Larry Ellison as part of your copyright license, that would be illegal and you wouldn't be required to honor that. The same is true of any other illegal act, including exclusion of competitors. Note, however, that this does NOT exclude crimes against YOU. If you agree to give up your right to privacy in exchange for the right to use Windows, then you can't file charges when Microsoft puts pictures of your naked wife on the MSN blog site, or on the "Hooker's hot-line board". You gave up control of your photo album the minute you logged into the computer the first time and hit the "I accept" button. > > It boils down to either being 100 percent with them or you being the enemy > > in their eyes. One could argue that BOTH sides want the court to ONLY rule THEIR way. Microsoft wants the courts to rule in favor of their patent, trademark, and copyright licenses, and to rule against all OSS licenses, especially the GPL. Conversely, Richard Stallman would probably like it if the court would rule that ALL Microsoft software was GPL because some amount of GPL code was knowingly used by Microsoft in their Windows and Office products. The courts are reluctant to go to either extreme with either party. This is one of the reasons why FSF lawyers get lots of settlements (to avoid setting legal precedent), and why so many companies settle with Microsoft. It's also why Microsoft prefers to commit the crimes, then pay $2 billion/year in settlements, rather than either stop committing the crimes, or press their defense through to a final verdict and final judgment. Very often, if, after reviewing the evidence and testimony, the Judge knows that the opinion will possibly create a precedent, he or she will telegraph their intent and likely ruling and then declare a 2 hour recess. This is primarily to warn the potential loser to "settle now" or risk becoming the loser in a case that could be lost in the supreme court. Judges are very reluctant to "legislate from the bench", and are very reluctant to issue a ruling that would establish a new precedent that would upset the status quo. Judges don't like to have their rulings and sentencing overturned, and they really have to believe that a new ruling is absolutely necessary, such as ending segregation, before they are willing to stick their neck out that far. Taking the wrong side of an issue, especially over a legal technicality, is a career- ending opportunity for a judge. They might be able to continue to preside over their current courtroom, but they won't be nominated for higher courts. Bottom line, I don't think Microsoft or FSF are likely to win decisive victories that either extend or revoke copyright laws or trademarklaws, or even patent laws. Even jury awards usually get overturned because the higher court doesn't want the jury's precedent to stand. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
