|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 06:11 PM EST |
And, if anything the Linux community would much rather say "LA LA LA I
CAN'T HEAR YOU", as if anyone knew they were distributing code covered by a
patent which a company had prohibited, they couldn't distribute. Hence, the very
carefully crafted license Microsoft and Novell created for SuSE. The license was
really along the line that the recipient wasn't going to be sued over some
unlisted patents (if there actually were any valid ones).
The big problem with suing someone for patent infringement on GPL2 code is that
you only get to do it once*, if the case makes it through to final judgement. At
that point, the community is on notice that they are no longer allowed to
distribute the infringing code without violating the GPL. It either has to be
removed/replaced, or the person being sued has to negotiate an unlimited
distribution license (like Red Hat did on one occasion).
* Yes, you can sue others based on past infringement, but what's the fun in
that, when injunctions are no longer a threat.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: tknarr on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 07:26 PM EST |
That depends. What kind of legal trouble would you be in for inducing someone
(by offers of money or threats of legal action) to deliberately violate
copyright law? I'm pretty sure that if you offered someone a large sum of money
to pirate a book I wrote and distribute it without a license, I could sue
you right along with the actual violator, no? [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|