GNU GPL can't force payment?

[Dag-Erling Smørgrav]

Cinly Ooi <cooi at theiet.org> writes:
> "Dag-Erling Smørgrav" <des at des.no> writes:
> > 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.  [...]
> Sorry, I should had been more precise. When I said violating FSF's
> copyright, I meant FSF's copyright on the text of GPL, not the source
> code.

I understood that.  They did not violate the FSF's copyright on the text
of the LGPL, because they did not modify the LGPL; they linked to an
unmodified copy.

> > 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", [...]  If, on the other hand, it is
> > interpreted as "we distribute the software to academics under the
> > LGPL", [...]
> Being in the academic sphere on a supporting role, I can tell you they
> meant the first interpretation. "we distribute the software under the
> terms of the LGPL with the additional restriction that it may only be
> used for academic purposes".

I completely agree that this is what they meant, but the question is not
what they meant, but how a lawyer could successfully convince a judge to
interpret it.

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