| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Open Source Software Shows Its Muscle (Law.com)Open Source Software Shows Its Muscle (Law.com)Posted Jun 5, 2008 15:24 UTC (Thu) by charlieb (subscriber, #23340)In reply to: Open Source Software Shows Its Muscle (Law.com) by lutchann Parent article: Open Source Software Shows Its Muscle (Law.com)
> They can no longer say "Well, in the worst case we might be forced > to pay $X million in damages but all our IP will be intact." You're kidding, right? Of course they can say that. They will also say - "We will also lose the right to distribute our IP until it separated from the GPL software that we've combined it with".
(Log in to post comments)
Open Source Software Shows Its Muscle (Law.com) Posted Jun 5, 2008 19:44 UTC (Thu) by lutchann (subscriber, #8872) [Link] There is no reason to believe that monetary damages and injunction against future distribution are the "worst" remedies that could be imposed by any court. This is particularly true if the requirements of the GPL are construed to be contractual obligations, as they would be with most license agreements that cover proprietary software.
|
|
||||||||||||