RE: Dell vs. GPL

["David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com>]

> Well, I couldn't possibly comment on that, but my original point stands;
> that pursuit of GPL violation must be pursued by the copyright _holder_,
> unless they assign that copyright to subsequent third-party beneficiaries.
> which technically I don't think they do, they merely grant a right to make
> copies in perpetuity, subject to the conditions of the GPL (or something
> like that)
>
> right ?

	If you phrase it as a pursuit of a license violation, yes. But that's not
what the suit would look like. You wouldn't be accusing them of violating
your copyright rights, you'd simply be accusing them of withholding from you
a benefit that was secured for you in a contract. That the contract involved
copyright rights is not important because you're not pursuing the copyright
rights.

	In other words, you're not accusing them of a copyright violation, you're
accusing them of a contract violation. Specifically, they entered into a
contract (which named you as an intended beneficiary), took what the
contract offered them but failed to provide you the benefit the contract
secured you.

	If I sell you my car, but the contract stipulates that you must let my
grandmother drive on the first Saturday of the month, and you don't let her
do that, she can sue you. She wouldn't be arguing that you stole the car or
defrauded me in the sale. She'd simply argue that you received valuable
compensation in exchange for a benefit you were to provide to her, and that
you failed to provide her that benefit, and thus you're liable for her
damages or must provide the benefit.

	DS