5 ms·

> unless and until there is a significant and tested base of case law, in every jurisdiction I care about, these licenses are just contracts between happy parti

> unless and until there is a significant and tested base of case law, in every jurisdiction I care about, these licenses are just contracts between happy parties. Angry parties define case law. There is a significant and tested base of GPL case law. Large corporations regularly find themselves with no option other than coming into compliance. The beauty of the GPL as a license, I think, is that there's no way to contest its validity -- if you're distributing GPL-derived code yet you don't think the GPL works, then you're distributing someone else's code without any valid copyright license, and you have lost.

lifeisstillgood 14y ago
I did think that there was minimal precedent-setting cases. There is the "world first" of iptables in Munich, Germany, from 2004, but afaik most stuff is settled quickly - the GPL looks water tight and the PR shitstorm is not worth the effort. Only companies like D-Link and Cisco have even come close - so there is precendence in US and Germany for embedded GPL violations. Not in the UK to my limited knowledge though. It might be untestable however - everyone wants it to be as it is, almost no-one benefits enough from breaking it, at least not blatently. Which I think is the thrust of your second paragraph.? * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Legal_status http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Lega... * http://www.twobirds.com/English/News/Articles/Pages/2007/Review_German_GNU_General_Public_License.aspx http://www.twobirds.com/English/News/Articles/Pages/2007/Rev...