> pgsql@mohawksoft.com wrote:
>> Imagine this scenario:
>>
>> OpenFoobar is released as GPL. Portions of his code are found in
>> PostgreSQL. The new owner of OpenFoobar is an IP lawyer. They claim
>> ownership of code "derived" from "his" code. There is now a valid, or
>> at least legally arguable, argument that PostgreSQL now demands GPL
>> source availability.
>>
>> I use PostgreSQL as a database foundation or my search-engine. Much of
>> my system is open source, but there are portions which are not. If the
>> IP lawyer is a competitor, he can force me to release my code.
>
>
> This is a common misconception. It ain't so. According to Eblen Moglen:
>
>
> "The claim that a GPL violation could lead to the forcing open of
> proprietary code that has wrongfully included GPL'd components is simply
> wrong. There is no provision in the Copyright Act to require distribution
> of infringing work on altered terms. What copyright plaintiffs are
> entitled to, under the Act, are damages, injunctions to prevent infringing
> distribution, and--where appropriate--attorneys' fees. A defendant found
> to have wrongfully included GPL'd code in its own proprietary work can be
> mulcted in damages for the distribution that has already occurred, and
> prevented from distributing its product further. That's a sufficient
> disincentive to make wrongful use of GPL'd program code. And it is all
> that the Copyright Act permits."
>
> I have mixed feelings about the GPL myself, but I hate seeing this FUD so
> frequently.
This isn't FUD, I release GPL code. Maybe I detailed a specific
"conclusion" instead of a process. One of the obvious remedies for GPL
"damages" would be to open the code.
>
> In any case, the whole thing that kicked off this discussion is *not* GPL
> software. So let's get on with our business.
Agreed, but, PostgreSQL is a great product/project, it has the ability to
challenge *big* database companies, and *big* companies have blood sucking
IP lawyers. A little care and attention now will pay down the road.
