3 ms·
> Also, what if a company decides to ignore the GPL and pay up? The courts and law understand monetary damages. The FSF runs the risk of the judge deciding that
by steerablesafe 5y ago
> Also, what if a company decides to ignore the GPL and pay up? The courts and law understand monetary damages. The FSF runs the risk of the judge deciding that the code is already out there, and the value the code is $X: therefore the infringer should reasonably buy a license for $X and doesn't have to give source code back. This would violate the spirit of the GPL, but would fit the letter of the law.
IANAL but I don't think it works that way. They could pay up $X for damages and even get their license revoked. They still don't buy a license to perpetually violate the GPL.
- bluGill 5y agoPerhaps. I wouldn't be surprised if their license was revoked. I wouldn't be surprised if the courts assigned a value to the license and told the FSF to accept that. There isn't much case law here. It will probably end up in appeals for years. In the end it doesn't really benefit anyone to take their chances in court.
- steerablesafe 5y ago> I wouldn't be surprised if the courts assigned a value to the license and told the FSF to accept that. You basically say that the court can order the copyright holders to offer an exclusive proprietary license to the violators for a "reasonable" price.
- bluGill 5y agoright. courts have a lot of power which they will use if they decide someone is being unreasonable. I'm not making a prediction of what the courts will do. There isn't enough case law to be sure (and nobody really wants to chance it so there probably never will be)
- steerablesafe 5y ago> There isn't enough case law to be sure Isn't there any case law for license violations in general? For the purpose of this discussion this is just yet an other license violation, not necessarily tied to the GPL.