article on GPLv3, Linux kernel, and Devices Rigged to Malfunction
home at alexhudson.com
Tue Oct 24 15:36:56 UTC 2006
On Tue, 2006-10-24 at 10:39 -0400, simo wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-10-24 at 13:44 +0100, Alex Hudson wrote:
> > AFAICS, you're just restating the inverse of what I said - you can't sue
> > anyone outside the 2 month window.
> No, notifying is not going to tribunal and sue, they are two very
> different steps.
"Sue" doesn't necessarily mean take legal action (else peacemaking would
be a judicial process in English); but in any case, you're reading too
narrow a meaning into my words. We mean the same thing - if you haven't
heard within two months, your legal worries are over. That is the point
I think is an important improvement in GPLv3.
> Remember you are not required to release the keys if you really don't
> want to, you can also just stop distribution, and that's a good enough
> remedy under the GPL.
Not necessarily - it's not up to the GPL, it's up to the author. The
current GPL doesn't limit damages in situations where the agreement is
broken, as far as I know. The aforementioned 60-day rule is the first
time such a limitation has been built into the licence.
More information about the Discussion