Aha. Okay. So (even if you're super pro Free Software like me) this doesn't seem all that bad, I think -- the error was the small guys "going for the money," but the GPL was never much about money, it's about compliance with the license.
Does this seem right? (Yeah, I am a lawyer, but also not French)
I agree that the goal is to get people (actually mostly businesses) to comply with the license, but that is sadly tied to what the consequences are if you are found to be in violation.
The requirement go through contract violation instead of counterfeit will in practice drastically reduce these costs, and thus the incentives for compliance, while at the same time reducing the incentive of the authors to even try defending their rights.
It can be, but as I recall, the crux of the whole router WRT story was the FSF or whoever called up Linksys and said, "You're in violation, but calm down, we don't want money. Let's talk." -- and that is why we have e.g. DD-WRT, Tomato et al today.
If you want to get compliance and legal cases take a decade, then damages need to cover a decade of lawyers, plus however much internal time/cost you spend on it over that decade.
Does this seem right? (Yeah, I am a lawyer, but also not French)