Larry, I know of multiple parties who have settled by Ceasing to manufacture the product orReleasing a new version of their binary software along with complete and corresponding source code.
Some of these cases involved replacing binaries that were static linked to LGPL software with binaries that were dynamic linked, to satisfy the requirement that the two pieces be seperable so that the LGPL piece could be modified by the end-user.
In all of the cases that I know of, the parties had available to them the strategy of asserting that their work was not derivative, and providing the GPL source only without reference to the proprietary components of their products. Surely, many of them have read your book. However, none of these parties chose to do so.
You may well be right. Nobody, however, has found it economical to invest the resources to prove that in court.
Thanks
Bruce
On 03/02/2012 09:16 AM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
NOBODY has ever settled such a case such that their code must be released.
<<attachment: bruce.vcf>>
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
