On Tue, 2006-10-24 at 16:36 +0100, Alex Hudson wrote: > 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.
This is definitively a very good thing. It will give legal certainty to the "goods" that made a venial mistake, while keeping in full force the ability to prosecute hardcore violators. I think we agree on this point completely. > > 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. Damages are a different thing, I was just telling how you can get back into compliance. Stopping to distribute is a lawful way to comply with the GPL (and v. hard too if you think of a business). Damages can be negotiated privately or in court, but I'm not sure a judge will let you necessarily extort the keys as part of the settlement, the Judge may decide that a bunch of $$ is enough. That said I think there is no difference in this with GPLv2. Simo. _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
