[gwd]

> However, I'd argue that it is good that it was decided that this is a copyright law matter, because this gives authors _much_ more protection than contract law

Copyright law may give the authors more power; but unfortunately, experience teaches us that there's usually not much incentive for the authors to enforce their rights. (The case in TFA is an exception, since the author profits directly from dual-licensing.).

For this reason, the SFC has been trying to get the courts to also see it as a contract; and specifically, one in which all other possible users of the software are beneficiaries. This gives random third-parties standing to sue for damages. If it works, it means that the SFC (for example) could go around suing companies which violate the GPL without needing involvement from the original copyright holders.

https://writing.kemitchell.com/2021/10/19/SFC-v-Vizio-Compla...

[missjellyfish]

I'm not entirely sure if this is even possible the way copyright in the EU works today. Be that as it may, at least from my perspective what really prohibits me from actually enforcing GPL on my software is funding. I rarely go beyond sending a stern letter, because anything more would be financial suicide in most cases; I might win but it is incredibly hard to prove damages. Punitive damages don't really exist in the EU (or, to be more precise, in the roman-german law system), at least not to the exterme seen in common law systems.

At least in my case, I'd fight tooth and nail for my software, if I don't have to bear the financial risk.