No I'm not, I'm obviously well informed if I understand the license and how it's used in the industry even better than it's rabid supporters. No, you obviously don't understand:
- Linux's Hit Men: Cisco forced to post redistributed GPL code and license, OpenTV below, NuSphere I'm not sure about, but they did have a contract with MySQL that they violated, a contract up front to create open source software (so they can't claim ignorance)
- The GPL Compliance Lab: No other suits mentioned.
- FSF Threatens GPL Lawsuit: Not forced to release own code, forced to comply with the terms of GPL software and pay a settlement
- Software firm settles GPL violation lawsuit: Not forced to release own code, forced to comply with the terms of GPL in releasing source of redistributed software
All you do is bolster my argument: you do NOT have to make your code GPL if you have the money to settle with the copyright holders of the code you redistributed. That is an option, one you don't have with commercial software.
Most of these GPL suits are about companies using GPL software written by others to drive their hardware, and then not complying with the GPL in order to get redistribution rights for the software. The sad thing is that all they needed to do in the beginning was include a copy of the GPL and post the source at their web site.
All you do is bolster my argument: you do NOT have to make your code GPL if you have the money to settle with the copyright holders of the code Wrong, all the settlements require releasing their code. You used to be a little sharper, but now you're getting the facts wrong just as much as the others you've been hanging out with lately.