If I had published a popular library under LGPL, and then found out that a chip company stole my code by ignoring/removing the license (change to less restrictive in attribution) I would perhaps go as far as subtly block my code from ever properly functioning on the company’s chips, until the license is respected.
People might have forgot what happened in linux kernel with the “nvidia shim module”. Those were actually banned, non-gpl compatible kernel module cannot use gpl-only symbols from the kernel. What happened here is even worse, straight up violating the license from the authors.
GPL license should have a version that could cheaply be defended by the victim of the license violation, if a verbatim violating copy is found. Some €€/month bill could pileup while a violating copy is proven to be distributed.
If I had published a popular library under LGPL, and then found out that a chip company stole my code by ignoring/removing the license (change to less restrictive in attribution) I would perhaps go as far as subtly block my code from ever properly functioning on the company’s chips, until the license is respected.
People might have forgot what happened in linux kernel with the “nvidia shim module”. Those were actually banned, non-gpl compatible kernel module cannot use gpl-only symbols from the kernel. What happened here is even worse, straight up violating the license from the authors.
GPL license should have a version that could cheaply be defended by the victim of the license violation, if a verbatim violating copy is found. Some €€/month bill could pileup while a violating copy is proven to be distributed.
edit: minor fixes.