3 ms·
> mostly because it could be really bad if a judge gets it wrong and sets something stupid as precedent. At this point, isn't precedent already set? There have
by bogwog 5y ago
> mostly because it could be really bad if a judge gets it wrong and sets something stupid as precedent.
At this point, isn't precedent already set? There have been more than a few GPL lawsuits where the courts ruled in favor of the GPL. This wiki has a list (https://wiki.fsfe.org/Migrated/GPL%20Enforcement%20Cases https://wiki.fsfe.org/Migrated/GPL%20Enforcement%20Cases) of them.
Some of those are in the US, others in the EU. Not sure if US judges have to consider precedents set in EU countries?
- jrm4 5y agoI'd say there's not "enough," and in a sense, precedent is never binary, like "yes or no?" The law having distinctions and extensions and so on. US will probably find EU law persuasive but not binding. So broadly, I think at least part of the strategy is "don't wake the beast." You really don't want e.g. "Microsoft v. Tiny GPL guy" as a big case because the law is far from perfect and there would be a lot of potential incentive/influence in MS's favor. (True, you'd get lots of Amicus action from Mozilla et al, but that would probably not be enough)
- pabs3 5y agoThere is precedent from 2003 in the USA: https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/enforcement-strategy.html#brief-history-of-user-focused-gpl-enforcement https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/enforcement-st...