4 ms·

Working with the assumption that Sony righted-itself in a reasonable time-frame after legal action/threats began; Could KDE prevent sales of VAIO machines if t

by polshaw 14y ago

Working with the assumption that Sony righted-itself in a reasonable time-frame after legal action/threats began; Could KDE prevent sales of VAIO machines if they were now complaint? I guess not? Is there ANY precedent for damages of this kind of situation? (particularly where wilful infringement was not long-continued) If not, it would seem there is an almost non-existent risk.

mpyne 14y ago
If Sony took even the tiniest steps toward reasonable action to come in compliance I'd be 101% surprised if either the KDE e.V. or the artist tries to take any further legal action. And given that the license in this case merely requires attribution it would seem it's very easy to come into compliance. I don't know jriddell personally but I would be willing to bet his point is not the infringement, so much as the hypocrisy by the Big Giant Defender of IP, Sony.
- polshaw 14y ago
  I understand this, but i was asking a broader question; is there any real deterrent or risk for a company to use GPL code (in violation) first, and then fix it if/when they get found out and threatened legal action. No one has brought up a case that got to the point of there being actual damages, which leads me to believe there isn't, really. The closest i (as by no means an expert) can think of in terms of commercial 'damage' is when Linksys released the source code for their routers found using linux. (And this release probably led to them making more money anyway).
  - mpyne 14y ago
    > is there any real deterrent or risk for a company to use GPL code (in violation) first, and then fix it if/when they get found out and threatened legal action. Well, there's a pretty wide gulf between "The Board of Directors and CEO decided that any legal consequences would be cheaper than not infringing" and "Oops, we didn't mean to mis-appropriate that IP". The tricky area IMO is when a company or industry repeatedly "Oops"es and you have to start wondering whether they're even performing due diligence.

by polshaw 14y ago

mpyne 14y ago

If Sony took even the tiniest steps toward reasonable action to come in compliance I'd be 101% surprised if either the KDE e.V. or the artist tries to take any further legal action. And given that the license in this case merely requires attribution it would seem it's very easy to come into compliance. I don't know jriddell personally but I would be willing to bet his point is not the infringement, so much as the hypocrisy by the Big Giant Defender of IP, Sony.

polshaw 14y ago
I understand this, but i was asking a broader question; is there any real deterrent or risk for a company to use GPL code (in violation) first, and then fix it if/when they get found out and threatened legal action. No one has brought up a case that got to the point of there being actual damages, which leads me to believe there isn't, really. The closest i (as by no means an expert) can think of in terms of commercial 'damage' is when Linksys released the source code for their routers found using linux. (And this release probably led to them making more money anyway).
- mpyne 14y ago
  > is there any real deterrent or risk for a company to use GPL code (in violation) first, and then fix it if/when they get found out and threatened legal action. Well, there's a pretty wide gulf between "The Board of Directors and CEO decided that any legal consequences would be cheaper than not infringing" and "Oops, we didn't mean to mis-appropriate that IP". The tricky area IMO is when a company or industry repeatedly "Oops"es and you have to start wondering whether they're even performing due diligence.