Mark Harrison wrote: <big snip> > In the UK, it's hard to see how the courts would do anything other than <snip> > In the US, the concept of "punitive damages" exists, <snip> > What I don't see (and this is where I came in - in disagreeing with some > of the web articles written) is that a customer calling for support on a > GPLv3 product under one of these contracts would automatically mean that > Microsoft had breached the law.
Yes, I guess I was mainly intrigued by the principle that GPL piggybacks on existing copyright law so as to prevent individuals (or corporate entities) from asserting exclusive ownership, rather than setting up a contract specifically to preserve exclusive ownership. That's what struck my as a stroke of genius (and so unlike the normal principles underlying licensing). And, as you say, a consequence is that how the mechanics of GPL work in practice will be specific to the particular jurisdiction's copyright legislation. (Eben has said that he thinks GPLv3 is a bit too focused on the USA.) One of the bloggers pointed out that in the USA, breach of copyright can be a criminal offence as well as a civil one (See http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000506----000-.html) Do you (or Matthew) know whether this might actually have any relevance to Microsoft's liability? Best wishes Mac -- [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.kubuntu.org/UKTeam/
