Re: Details
LWN Article:
There is a need to find out what his claims are, but there are plenty of targets for the basic claims (no source and no offer); in any case, over time, McHardy has moved away from the more exotic claims. Some entities that use chips from manufacturers that do not comply with the licenses, though, are stuck. They cannot comply with the license themselves. It is important to stop all of this activity with McHardy, Radcliffe said, if he continues to benefit, it will attract others.
Sorry, no bonus. It is part of basic due diligence that what you put into your product is not stolen, illegal or counterfeit. For open source stuff this includes checking all components and their source.
I had to do that in two companies for products I built.
The fact that the manufacturer "has not shipped it" as far as the court is concerned is not far off from "dog ate my homework". Example of what it actually is: a manufacturer is shipping you half assembled PCs with counterfeit Windows on them. You add a monitor, a keyboard, a badge with your name and sell it. Do you think that Microsoft lawyers will give you any quarter? F*** no. You will be digging yourself out of restitution debt for the rest of your life (and may even end up in jail in some jurisdictions). So why on earth do we have these guys, who are supposedly lawyers trying to present us that this is quite kosher? It never was and it never will be.