On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Bernd Petrovitsch <be...@petrovitsch.priv.at> wrote: > On Mon, 2012-02-06 at 13:11 -0200, Matheus Izvekov wrote: > [....] >> I think there are two main points about this: >> The first is that I agree with Tim that suspending the license is a >> big issue for any company wishing to ship busybox, >> much more so if all of their other unrelated products are held >> hostage. Any litigation regarding busybox should remain > > That's a question of legal systems, laws and how that works in general - > and it works in pretty all areas of life that way BTW. > And if it is truly such "a big issue" for them, why they are risking it > in the first place? >
I am only responding to this bit because it represents a false assumption about what I was advocating for, and this propagates to all the parts of your response below. What I am saying has nothing to do with what the GPL text itself says, it might as well say anything. The law firm which is advancing these lawsuits is responding to someone, Denys I suppose, and this person has the power to decide to sue or not, independently of what the license actually says. What I am advocating for is more discretion in this decision, taking into account what can be gained from it, and what can be the costs. This might sound wrong to the more idealistically inclined, but I am saying that the busybox legal representative should take more into account than the mere 'not complying with the license'. It's what executives at most companies do, they don't sue willy nilly, contrary to popular belief. They realize there are huge costs involved, and they at least have an ulterior motive, even if that sometimes is a flawed reasoning about avoiding damages. Even if they sometimes are very wrong about the payoffs, they are at least trying to take them into consideration. _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list busybox@busybox.net http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
