|
|
|
|
|
|
by zchrykng
2145 days ago
|
|
|
The article points out that Drew believes it isn't the case. Until this stuff is tested in court, there isn't a lawyer worth the name who would guarantee that. The language isn't precise enough to be 100% sure how courts will interpret it, and the downside risk is monumentally huge for a company like Google if the ruling goes against them. |
|
|
The downside risk is damages. Those usually aren't monumentally huge. There's a calculation, but they're based on how much damage was done:
1) How much did Google profit from the code?
2) How much did the other party lose?
3) Are statutory damages greater?
Pick the highest of the three. If it's intentional -- and in this case it isn't -- you triple it. You might toss in legal fees.
#1 is the relative cost to going with an alternative solution (build in-house, license, etc.). #2 is usually zero for AGPL code. #3 is pocket change for Google. So you're likely to go with the cost of not having gone with AGPL in the first place, twice (once in damages, and once for the migration).