I understand this, but i was asking a broader question; is there any real deterrent or risk for a company to use GPL code (in violation) first, and then fix it if/when they get found out and threatened legal action.
No one has brought up a case that got to the point of there being actual damages, which leads me to believe there isn't, really. The closest i (as by no means an expert) can think of in terms of commercial 'damage' is when Linksys released the source code for their routers found using linux. (And this release probably led to them making more money anyway).
> is there any real deterrent or risk for a company to use GPL code (in violation) first, and then fix it if/when they get found out and threatened legal action.
Well, there's a pretty wide gulf between "The Board of Directors and CEO decided that any legal consequences would be cheaper than not infringing" and "Oops, we didn't mean to mis-appropriate that IP".
The tricky area IMO is when a company or industry repeatedly "Oops"es and you have to start wondering whether they're even performing due diligence.
No one has brought up a case that got to the point of there being actual damages, which leads me to believe there isn't, really. The closest i (as by no means an expert) can think of in terms of commercial 'damage' is when Linksys released the source code for their routers found using linux. (And this release probably led to them making more money anyway).