4 ms·
The difference is that the suit in that case was for billions of dollars. The suit in this case would be for compliance with the GPL.
by llm_thr 3y ago
The difference is that the suit in that case was for billions of dollars.
The suit in this case would be for compliance with the GPL.
- beanjuiceII 3y agonvidia are in compliance, they are working around it with a shim, that is why he says the new guards are put in place to enforce the "intention" of the original changes. There is no case
- Zigurd 3y agoThat's not really how licences work. "Ha, ha I have a workaround that negates the intent of your license with a clever hack" is not a defensible position.
- beanjuiceII 3y agothat is how licenses work, they aren't about what you "intend"
- MichaelZuo 3y agoEvery additional interest involved in the case would multiply legal complexity, and legal costs, probably exponentially.
- cogman10 3y agoThe remedy is only one part of the cost of lawsuits. Discovery and attorney fees would be a big portion of the picture here. If there's no settlement reached, each party will have a right to collect and comb through documents related to the lawsuit. Further, they'd have the right to interview (take a deposition of) everyone involved in decisions surrounding the controversy. That means, nVidia would (likely) have the right to start talking to people in HP, Intel, AMD, Oracle, broadcom, On semiconductor, etc. Practically anyone involved with kernel development and decision making around kernel development. The US civil legal system is designed to try and force parties into settlement. However, when you have a major corporation with cash to burn, they can win simply by dragging everything out.