Subject: RE: conducting a sane and efficient GPLv3, LGPLv3 Review
From: "Lawrence Rosen" <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 12:58:37 -0700

Rick Moen wrote:
> Do you really think you'd find any judge willing to order that sort of
> specific performance as a equitable remedy, when lesser remedies
> involving injunctive relief and (if applicable) damages would more than
> suffice and are prescribed by statute?  You're the lawyer, my good sir,
> but I have my doubts.

If the GPL is enforced on contract grounds, I'd seek specific performance,
which is a contract remedy. If enforced as a bare license under copyright
law, I don't believe specific performance is an allowed remedy.

I'd argue both contract and license, even though the FSF/SFLC pretends the
GPL can't be a contract.

/Larry


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rick Moen [mailto:rick@linuxmafia.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 12:02 PM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: Re: conducting a sane and efficient GPLv3, LGPLv3 Review
> 
> Quoting Lawrence Rosen (lrosen@rosenlaw.com):
> 
> > Frankly, I haven't seen any case where a GPL copyright owner has risked
> a
> > lawsuit to force the disclosure of a derivative work either, but that
> one
> > I'd be willing to take to court, perhaps even on contingency.
> 
> Do you really think you'd find any judge willing to order that sort of
> specific performance as a equitable remedy, when lesser remedies
> involving injunctive relief and (if applicable) damages would more than
> suffice and are prescribed by statute?  You're the lawyer, my good sir,
> but I have my doubts.
> 
> Real-world examples, with only some specific corporate names omitted:
> http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Licensing_and_Law/copyright-infringement.html