| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Recommendation: no GPLv3 for SolarisRecommendation: no GPLv3 for SolarisPosted Feb 11, 2007 21:16 UTC (Sun) by khim (subscriber, #9252)In reply to: Recommendation: no GPLv3 for Solaris by zlynx Parent article: Recommendation: no GPLv3 for Solaris
There's no one for any GPLv3 copyright holder to sue in that scenario. No one is violating the license. Cartel from Vendors A, B and C is violating the license. If vendor A truly does not know anything about vendors B and C (for example if it's RedHat) then you need to send them letter and ask them to change signature to stop vendor's B and C. If it's not done then you just go to court. End of story. And Vendor B will have truly hard time trying to explain why he's selling the hardware which is unusable without software from Vendor A: if he does not know about Vendor A - then what he thinks users should do with this hardware, if they know about Vendor A, but have no agreement with Vendor A - then how can they be sure it'll not stop producing "USB keys", if they know about Vendor A and have an agreement with Vendor A - then they together are infringing. Yes, it's possible to circumvent GPLv3, but it's insanely risky and thus the whole example looks like straw men...
(Log in to post comments)
|
|
||||||||||||