Using a library that is wrongly licensed

Question

Let's say there are 3 people Q A Z . Q makes a GPL library. A uses it and licensed it under the MIT licence purposefully. Z uses A's library in a proprietary, paid-for library and distributes it with over a million downloads when Q realizes and files an infringement case against A and then Z has also infringed indirectly. However Z cannot apply GPL to his code as it would be a commercial disaster. What will Z do?

Answer 1

Z soit libérer son / son travail sous licence GPL, ou (s) il cesse immédiatement la distribution et de rembourser toute sa / elle affecté les clients pour le code qu'ils ont payé à utiliser , mais ne peut plus utiliser. Telles sont les options disponibles ( modifier: approcher Q pour une licence commerciale est, comme Felix G le souligne ci-dessous, une autre option, bien que je considère très peu susceptible de réussir).

Comme indiqué dans les commentaires ci-dessus, Z n'a pas payé A pour le code que A a rendu disponible par erreur sous le MIT; en effet, A pourrait bien ne pas avoir la moindre idée que Z utilise le code de A de cette manière. Il est donc très peu probable que A ait une quelconque responsabilité.

If Z was selling a product with a clear disclaimer that the customer bought it at their own risk and Z had no idea whether the customer was entitled to use it, then I suppose it's possible that Z would be protected from an obligation to refund his/her customers. But (a) it's jurisdictionally-dependent, (b) it's also off-topic for OS.SE, and (c) why would anybody buy a product under those terms in the first place?

At the end of the day, Z has decided to make a business out of selling someone else's work. If you're going to do that, you need to bend over backwards to ensure that you have the right to do it. Z failed to ensure that, and is enjoying the consequences.