Yet Another Reason to Fear Attorneys...

[TWPonKubuntu]

This is an ongoing case relating to our use of GPL licensed and "Open Source" software:

..."However it comes out, this issue is an important one both for developers and corporate consumers of GPL-licensed software, because it will determine to what extent companies can restrict their contractors' redistribution of GPL-licensed software."...

http://opensource.com/law/14/7/lawsu...censing-issues

IANAL but this may have wider effect than we now see. Keep an eye on it if you develop or code for a living.

[GreyGeek]

IMO, the attorneys are not the issue here. They are just doing their job in the best "perry mason" style that they can.

As far as being ignorant of the terms of the GPL or if a piece of software is under the GPL, I suspect that such claimed ignorance is fraudulent.

Versata used GPL software. Were they ignorant that it was GPL software and/or of the terms of the GPL? ALL GPL software includes notices of the GPL license and terms, and cannot legally be passed on ("distributed"), modified or not, without including such a notice. To establish what Versata knew, and when they knew it, an attorney could subpoena copies of the original source as downloaded from XimpleWare by Versata and compare it with the source distributed to Ameriprise. If the GPL notice is missing Versata was knowledgable of the GPL nature of XimpleWare's software and deliberately violated the GPL by removing that notice, among other infringements of the license.

In the long run I doubt that any court will agree that the GPL includes a "patent license", without actually having a patent.

As the article points out, the Ballmer smokescreen, that the GPL is "viral", is bogus because stealth is not present.

[MoonRise]

"As the article points out, the Ballmer smokescreen, that the GPL is "viral", is bogus because stealth is not present."

+1