It doesn't really matter if in practise the source is released, that's just one possible (ideal) outcome. As long as damage is done to those that abuse the lice

It doesn't really matter if in practise the source is released, that's just one possible (ideal) outcome. As long as damage is done to those that abuse the license, that's ultimately what matters as a disincentive to prevent further/on-going abuse. > A defendant found to have wrongfully included GPL'd code in its own proprietary work can be mulcted in damages for the distribution that has already occurred, and prevented from distributing its product further. That's a sufficient disincentive to make wrongful use of GPL'd program code. And it is all that the Copyright Act permits. From your own quote. This is ultimately good enough. You either get the source or the proprietary software is knee-capped/no longer allowed to be distributed. From a Free Software perspective that's a win.