16 ms·
Not so. Think of a license that limits you to X deployments per unit of time, and forbids any additional deployments. If your automated deployment system perf
by simoncion 12y ago
Not so.
Think of a license that limits you to X deployments per unit of time, and forbids any additional deployments.
If your automated deployment system performs X+Y deployments (where Y > 0) in a unit of time, then you're in violation of your contract and legally liable for your actions.
Is this contrived? A little. But, realistically:
1) The GPL isn't the only license that you can violate with sloppy dev practices.
2) In the overwhelming majority of GPL violation cases, the remedy is for the violator to simply comply with the code's license and ship the code covered by the GPL.
- tbrownaw 12y agoContrived examples are contrived. 1) Sibling post mentioned forgetting to include notices in the documentation. Which is a valid counterpoint, but I would assume requires more of a one-time effort than a permanent change (improvement) in work procedures. 2) Assuming they can even find the right version.
- simoncion 12y ago> I would assume [remembering to put copyright notices in documentation] requires more of a one-time effort than a permanent change (improvement) in work procedures. You assume wrong. There is always another project, or another library.