[onphonenow]

If you really want to pursue violations you COULD partner with SFC - the busybox developer did this.

"As the ex-maintainer of busybox who STARTED those lawsuits in the first place and now HUGELY REGRETS ever having done so, I think I'm entitled to stop the lawsuits in whatever way I see fit. They never resulted in a single line of code added to the busybox repository. They HAVE resulted in more than one company exiting Linux development entirely and switching to non-Linux operating systems" - https://lwn.net/Articles/478361/

Here is the SFC's issue (came up when busybox replacements were discussed)

"What can we do? The real problem here is that the SFC's reliance on Busybox means that they're only able to target infringers who use that Busybox code. No significant kernel copyright holders have so far offered to allow the SFC to enforce their copyrights, with the result that enforcement action will grind to a halt as vendors move over to this Busybox replacement."

What's weird is despite NO significant copyright holder going along with SFC, they keep on marching forward as if they are backed by folks creating this code.

[robonerd]

> They never resulted in a single line of code added to the busybox repository.

This is why you don't want lawyers calling the shots. Lawyers are looking to get paid, they'd rather get a cash settlement than get the code. If the lawyers are working for you, the copyright holder, then you can choose how to handle the situation. But if you sign the code over to the lawyers, it will no longer be your call.

[simulate-me]

The legal fees would add up to hundreds of thousands of dollars at a minimum. There just aren't many people / organizations who have that kind of money to spend just to get some open source code. Perhaps adding some language about legal fees would make the license more attractive to lawyers.

[robonerd]

I own the copyright to some GPL code. Nothing major or very important, but it's out there nonetheless. If I find out that a company has taken my code and is violating the license, here are the two outcomes I'd want, in order of preference:

1) The violator release their code under the GPL, as the license said they should have.

2) If they refuse my request for #1, I want to forget the matter completely and put it behind me.

If a lawyer offers to represent me pro bono and help me get the code, with no talk of getting paid, I'd accept that offer. I wrote the code with no expectation of getting paid for it. If a lawyer wants donate his labor to the project as I donated mine, that's fine with me. Otherwise, the lawyer can crawl up his own ass and die there. I'd rather have scenario #2 than see a lawyer getting paid to sue somebody over my code.

[webmaven]

> 2) If they refuse my request for #1, I want to forget the matter completely and put it behind me.

The likely result here is that the request will be refused (or just ignored) by default. Which means that there is no chance the license will ever be complied with, and users will never receive the modified code that they are entitled to under the GPL.

What's the point of licensing under the GPL if users never get the rights the GPL grants them?

[simulate-me]

My point is that the GPL should include a clause that if you sue for a breach of contract and win, then the violator of the license needs to pay your legal fees. This would (theoretically) allow a lawyer to sue with your permission and on your behalf and get paid while still forcing the infringer to respect the contract and release their code.