Nathanael Nerode writes: > To me, this means that Broadcom didn't know what the hell it was doing. > I cannot divine Broadcom's actual intentions from that, and Broadcom can > easily and convincingly claim that it intended something different from > what you assume.
The intent implied by publically releasing a work under the GPL is well understood and widely known. I don't believe that they would stand any chance of getting an injunction, let alone damages. The fact that they have already permitted redistribution would count heavily against them. -- John Hasler