GNU GPL can't force payment?

[Dag-Erling Smørgrav]

Cinly Ooi <cooi at theiet.org> writes:
> "Dag-Erling Smørgrav" <des at des.no> writes:
> > [quoting http://compbio.cs.huji.ac.il/scoregenes/]
> > "The package is available here for academic research only under the
> > LESSER GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE"
> Needless to say they violated FSF's copyright on GPL and LGPL.

No, they didn't.  The LGPL says:

           GNU LESSER GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
                      Version 2.1, February 1999

 Copyright (C) 1991, 1999 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
     59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA  02111-1307  USA
 Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
 of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.

They did not alter the license, nor did they violate it.  They are not
recipients of the software; they are its authors, and have the right to
distribute it (or not) to whomever they like under whatever terms they
like.

I am unsure of the practical effect of this contradiction.  It depends
on the precise interpretation of the sentence I quoted.  If it is
interpreted as "we distribute the software under the terms of the LGPL
with the additional restriction that it may only be used for academic
purposes", I suspect that the net result is to invalidate the entire
license, so that those who obtain a copy of ScoreGenes directly from the
authors by legitimate means have the basic rights granted by copyright
regulations (i.e. the right to use the software and possibly also create
backup copies), but no more.  If, on the other hand, it is interpreted
as "we distribute the software to academics under the LGPL", there is
nothing to prevent those first-tier recipients from redistributing it
indiscriminately.

In my experience, the scientific community in general has a very tenuous
grasp of copyright law and software or content licensing, which is
ironic considering that their livelihood rests entirely on IP.

DES
-- 
Dag-Erling Smørgrav - des at des.no