🚀 go-pugleaf

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)
>   1) FSF could force the distribution of the program source.
>   2) FSF could obtain appropriate monetary compensation for damages
>   3) FSF could prevent further distribution of the executable program
>What the FSF would want, presumably, is (1).  I suspect, though, that they
>could only get (3).  ...

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.
--
"And they shall be cast out where there is no outlet for their evil doings..."
	-- the Book of Ubizmo, on sinful uses of electricity

Kenneth Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@crabcake.cs.jhu.edu)