Very Computer

Corel's non-disclosure is an affront to the GPL.
The agreement did not make any exemptions for GPL code or derivatives
contained within. It is an obvious "Actionable" behavior.

Who is responsible for ensuring the GPL remains enforced?
What are the damages involved?
How do we force companies, benefiting from the work of GPL developers,
to adhere to the GPL?

--
Mohawk Software
Windows 95, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com

Let's just wait and see what their final release is before we start
sounding the alarm.  Perens is already talking to them about it and
they have all but said, "whoops!".

Quote:> Who is responsible for ensuring the GPL remains enforced?
> What are the damages involved?
> How do we force companies, benefiting from the work of GPL developers,
> to adhere to the GPL?

Those that hold the copyright on that piece of work are legally
responsible.

--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.

That is sort of an issue in itself. I do not believe it. It could very
well be a test on the resolve of the GPL community to protect its
copyrights.

If they have millions of dollars to spend on layers to challenge the
copyright, what can GNU do about it? The fear is that this could be a
legal test of the enforceability of the GPL.

Quote:

> > Who is responsible for ensuring the GPL remains enforced?
> > What are the damages involved?
> > How do we force companies, benefiting from the work of GPL developers,
> > to adhere to the GPL?

> Those that hold the copyright on that piece of work are legally
> responsible.

Then this is a bad thing. If a company sufficiently large wishes to
incorporate GPL into closed source, and does not acknowledge the GPL
Copyright, and the copyright owners do not enforce their copyright, it
is as good as placing it in the public domain, and that is not what GNU
is about.

--
Mohawk Software
Windows 95, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com