|Subject:||Re: Will no-one sue GrSecurity for their blatant GPL violation (of GCC and the linux kernel)? - He is violating, but you can also rescind the license|
|Date:||Mon, 04 Nov 2019 18:17:48 +0000|
The licensee would then rush to the Federal Court in his district to seek a declaratory judgement regarding his rights, and then you're in a diversity and federal-question suit.
But that is an option where the licensee paid no consideration for the non-exclusive licensee grant (and no: obeying a pre-existing legal duty is not sufficient for consideration)
I would like to note that in the Kasner(sp)? decision in the 9th circuit the uneducated like to bandy about; the Artistic License was found NOT to be a contract but a simple copyright license.
Also in the lower-court (California) Artifex decision the court didn't even identify the "GPL" correctly, conflating it with the offer-to-do-paying-bushiness preliminary writing (pay us, or accept the GPL), but the court then allowed the Copyright holder to choose which theory to go ahead with: Contract damages for the price of the proprietary license OR pure Federal Copyright damages under the GPL (because the GPL is not a contract: it's only a license. If the court found it to be a contract it would limit the recovery to contract damages under state law: which is WHY in Kasner the violator wanted the Artistic license to be deemed a contract: damages of 0 (free))
However, GrSecurity is violating the GPL so you can just sue for Copyright damages off the bat (as my other 2 posts quickly explain, I haven't repeated the arguments here).
|[Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread]|