🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <6230@crabcake> arromdee@crabcake.cs.jhu.edu (Kenneth Arromdee) writes:
>In article <24459@netnews.upenn.edu> rubinoff@linc.cis.upenn.edu (Robert Rubinoff) writes:
>>But I do wonder:  suppose the GPL is enforceable; what would that mean?  I can
>>see three possibilities (assuming a situation where someone refuses to
>>distribute source to a program that incorporates code covered by the GPL)
>There's another possibility:
>
>4) A third party (say a former employee or whatever) obtains the source.  
>The FSF license makes it impossible for the company to sue the third party,
>and thus the license has had an effect even though the FSF has done nothing.

Maybe.  I'm not sure, though.  After all, the third party doesn't have any
license from anyone to do anything with the source.  The GPL might prevent the
company from getting damages (if the court rules that the GPL's requirements
mean that there were no damages), but it doesn't give the third party the right
to distribute the code.  In fact, if the company hadn't explicitly given the
object code to the third party, then the GPL wouldn't apply at all here.

   Robert