3 ms·
Strictly speaking this is true. However, if it were to be that Linux code ended up in NT, you might expect that the damages would be disastrous to the company.
by iigs 17y ago
Strictly speaking this is true. However, if it were to be that Linux code ended up in NT, you might expect that the damages would be disastrous to the company. Perhaps enough so that the only practical remedy would be to release the kernel as GPL to avoid the damages that would be awarded. This is the concern.
- artsrc 17y agoI would think that the most likely thing to happen is that no-one would ever know that GPL'd code was used. This is one feature of binary releases: copyright infringement is easy, widespread, and largely undetectable. I don't know of large damages being awarded for violations of the GPL. Is there must history of this? I would have thought Microsoft could write a replacement in house while their lawyers stall, then they would pay a fine quite small compared to their issues with proprietary IP, such as double space.
- Maxious 17y agoThe D-Link case on gpl-violations.org fetched ~2,870 euro. Small change perhaps, but if a larger damages could be found on the scale of Microsoft it wouldn't be insignificant. And as we see from the ffmpeg hall of shame, binary releases of wrongly-distributed GPL'd code often leave telltale strings in the binary. If you'd go to enough effort to obsfucate the binary effectively (not just strings) for every possible source file, why not just write it yourself?