decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
It's not just about keeping Canonical out of court | 474 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
It's not just about keeping Canonical out of court
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Monday, July 02 2012 @ 05:25 PM EDT
That was exactly my thought. The distributors will look to Canonical for a
solution in the event someone does sue.

If a third party does sue the over this issue, while the FSF's interpretation of
the GPL will doubtlessly be heavily considered it is the court that will decide
what the license actually means.

You also have to consider what obligations Canonical undertakes to its
distributors, for example a contractual obligation to support Canonical's
software or perhaps some indemnification.

Simply saying it's the distributors problem is not really a solution to the
business problem.

---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.

"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

ROFL - and what if one of those distributors is Psystar?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 02 2012 @ 07:04 PM EDT

A distributor that has no problem going beyond the licensing they actually have?

Sorry, but one worrying about whether or not some third party is going to breach a license is pointless for a large number of very good reasons which one can not control.

If the distributors have no problem complying with licenses (which they currently have to do whether FLOSS or proprietary) then Canonical has no worries. And for the others.... it's simply better not to do business with that type.

Just my humble opinions of course.

RAS

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )