🚀 go-pugleaf

> On 5 Nov 89 02:45:49 GMT, annala@neuro.usc.edu (A J Annala) said:
>AJ> An essential element in preserving an exclusive right to enforce
>AJ> the RMS philosophy about distributing software with many strings
>AJ> attached will be his (or FSF's) willingness to warn and litigate
>AJ> against any prospective copyright violators. . . .
>AJ> Can they pretend to be a tax exempt nonprofit organization while
>AJ> suing for profit allegedly lost as a consequence of a copyright
>AJ> violation?
>RP>I think that's a pretty poor attitude you have chosen for yourself and
>RP>it doesn't win much sympathy from a reader.
>RP>I don't know if the FSF has ever sued, it probably doesn't have the
>RP>money Apple does, but if it did, it wouldn't be for lost profits.  It
>RP>would be for violation of the copyright.  Not everything revolves
>RP>around money you know.  Not even in the US.
From: annala@neuro.usc.edu (A J Annala)
Path: neuro.usc.edu!annala

No one is asking for any sympathy here.  The point I am making is that
RMS/FSF appear to be claiming far more control over their product than
federal intellectual property laws allow.  The simple fact that RMS/FSF 
openly consent to the distribution of GNU software without charge and 
with no prior agreement in the form of an oral/written contract/license 
pretty much precludes any real possibility of successfully maintaining
a legal action to either restrict distribution or obtain damages for 
nonconformance with the terms of the GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE.  The
GPU license claims rights in excess of those provided by federal law.

I personally believe in acknowledging the source of any public domain
software.  I also believe in respecting the terms of my agreements to
limit the distribution of software (whether copyrighted or not) given
to me by another author.  However, I do not believe it is proper to 
take donations on the one hand to produce "free" software -- and then
claim that the force of federal law allows one to control the manner
in which such "free" software is copied, modified, or distributed.  I
suspect RMS/FSF may be acting improperly by making overreaching claims
about their ability to control the rights of others under federal law.

As a practical matter, if RMS/FSF have knowledge of a violation and do
not warn a violator to cease and desist and back up that warning with
the will and financial ability to litigate the matter, then copyright
(trade secret, patent, etc) laws are meaningless.  In today's economy
(given the laissez faire attitude of the government) the GNU project
must be prepared to defend it's claimed rights.  However, given the
considerations discussed above, I seriously doubt that any commitment
to challenging the actions of a nonconforming individual/organization
are unlikely to be worth the effort and expense of filing.  The judge
may also find such a filing to be frivilous and a contemptuous waste
of judicial resources.