Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 | From | Valdis.Kletnieks@vt ... | Date | Thu, 14 Jun 2007 00:00:17 -0400 |
| |
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 04:56:40 +0200, Adrian Bunk said:
> Reality check: > > Harald convinced companies that they have to provide the private keys > required to run the Linux kernel they ship on their hardware.
No, the *real* reality check:
The operative words here are "convinced companies" - as opposed to "convinced a judge to rule that private keys are required to be disclosed". (I just checked around on gpl-violations.org, and I don't see any news items that say they actually generated citable case law on the topic of keys...)
Harald convinced companies that it was easier/cheaper/faster to provide the private keys than to continue in a long legal battle with an uncertain outcome. If the company estimates the total loss due to keys being released is US$100K, but the costs of taking it to court are estimated at US$200K, it's obviously a win (lesser loss, actually) for the company to just fold.
Incidentally, this same logic is what drives the average successful patent troll lawsuit - the sued company will buy a license for $25K, just because they know that fighting the lawsuit will cost $100K and up.
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |