4 ms·

This is not at all true. They are liable for significant monetary damages for violating copyright, and you can find a lawyer to take up the case if you own the

This is not at all true. They are liable for significant monetary damages for violating copyright, and you can find a lawyer to take up the case if you own the copyright. There are a couple well known organizations who have gotten paid more than their expenses from lawsuits against gpl violating companies: sfconservancy.org, sflc.org., fsf.org.

teraflop 11y ago
In principle, yes. In practice, large companies have extensive legal resources and can afford to drag out a lawsuit far beyond the resources of a team volunteer/hobbyist developers. It's great that groups like the FSF and Software Freedom Conservancy are using their funds to support legal action when necessary, but they can't be everywhere and enforce everything.
- randx838 11y ago
  In practice, yes. First of all, all those organizations have enforced the gpl on behalf of "a team volunteer/hobbyist developers" from large companies. In fact, it's the primary kind of enforcement they do. Second of all, individuals who have zero resources win lawsuits against large companies EVERY SINGLE DAY. Lawyers work on contingency and pro bono. Stop this hand waving crap saying the gpl can't "really" be enforced for volunteer efforts.
  - detaro 11y ago
    From the article we are discussing, you probably should recommend grsecurity a few lawyers.
  - JohnTHaller 11y ago
    Yeah, again, no it doesn't work that way. Again, the folks you mentioned generally only work for non-profits and individual hobbyist devs. They don't work with for-profit companies (even if the company isn't making a profit at present). And the whole contingency thing... a lot less common than you think. Speaking as someone that's had his copyright ripped off multiple times and been injured due to negligence by the city of New York and/or Amtrak and looked into it with multiple attorneys in each case. For the most part, the legal system serves those with means and those with means alone.
    - belorn 11y ago
      The problem is the same for photographers as for coders. The law that prevent advertisement companies from lifting a image from flikr is the same that prevent companies from lifting some code and removing the license. Every time and again I read news about some photographer than sued some company and got a million or so for the efforts. Its not easy, quite expensive and I guess many author do give up rather than push forward, but there is recourse against huge companies that violate copyright. The good thing about such lawsuits is that the burden of proof for having a license sits on the infringer, which means a judge don't actually need to understand that fine details of software licenses in order to find someone guilty of infringement.
      - simoncion 11y ago
        All that notwithstanding, it appears that pursuing one of these cases is terribly expensive. Does the avenue exist? Yes. Is it actually available to those who don't have a bunch of cash to burn? No. As JohnTHaller said: "For the most part, the legal system serves those with means and those with means alone." As you said: "Its not easy, quite expensive..."
    - randx838 11y ago
      > it doesn't work that way. Again, the folks you mentioned generally only work for non-profits and individual hobbyist devs "that way" which I said it worked, was for non-profits and hobbyist, and so was the comment I was replying to, so yes, it does work that way. > those with means and those with means alone. Your own comment explained says that it works for other people.
JohnTHaller 11y ago
For most of us, it doesn't actually work that way. Folks like you've mentioned don't take on work unless you're a non-profit. And a pro-bono attorney generally won't touch a case like I mentioned, speaking as someone who asked multiple attorneys.
pornel 11y ago
Apple has been selling closed-source knock-off of my GPL app for 6 months after acknowledging they've received my takedown request. They've eventually took it down, but they haven't notified users and kept the money. I've asked sfconservancy and fsf for help, but they wouldn't take the case.

teraflop 11y ago

In principle, yes. In practice, large companies have extensive legal resources and can afford to drag out a lawsuit far beyond the resources of a team volunteer/hobbyist developers. It's great that groups like the FSF and Software Freedom Conservancy are using their funds to support legal action when necessary, but they can't be everywhere and enforce everything.

randx838 11y ago
In practice, yes. First of all, all those organizations have enforced the gpl on behalf of "a team volunteer/hobbyist developers" from large companies. In fact, it's the primary kind of enforcement they do. Second of all, individuals who have zero resources win lawsuits against large companies EVERY SINGLE DAY. Lawyers work on contingency and pro bono. Stop this hand waving crap saying the gpl can't "really" be enforced for volunteer efforts.
- detaro 11y ago
  From the article we are discussing, you probably should recommend grsecurity a few lawyers.
- JohnTHaller 11y ago
  Yeah, again, no it doesn't work that way. Again, the folks you mentioned generally only work for non-profits and individual hobbyist devs. They don't work with for-profit companies (even if the company isn't making a profit at present). And the whole contingency thing... a lot less common than you think. Speaking as someone that's had his copyright ripped off multiple times and been injured due to negligence by the city of New York and/or Amtrak and looked into it with multiple attorneys in each case. For the most part, the legal system serves those with means and those with means alone.
  - belorn 11y ago
    The problem is the same for photographers as for coders. The law that prevent advertisement companies from lifting a image from flikr is the same that prevent companies from lifting some code and removing the license. Every time and again I read news about some photographer than sued some company and got a million or so for the efforts. Its not easy, quite expensive and I guess many author do give up rather than push forward, but there is recourse against huge companies that violate copyright. The good thing about such lawsuits is that the burden of proof for having a license sits on the infringer, which means a judge don't actually need to understand that fine details of software licenses in order to find someone guilty of infringement.
    - simoncion 11y ago
      All that notwithstanding, it appears that pursuing one of these cases is terribly expensive. Does the avenue exist? Yes. Is it actually available to those who don't have a bunch of cash to burn? No. As JohnTHaller said: "For the most part, the legal system serves those with means and those with means alone." As you said: "Its not easy, quite expensive..."
  - randx838 11y ago
    > it doesn't work that way. Again, the folks you mentioned generally only work for non-profits and individual hobbyist devs "that way" which I said it worked, was for non-profits and hobbyist, and so was the comment I was replying to, so yes, it does work that way. > those with means and those with means alone. Your own comment explained says that it works for other people.

JohnTHaller 11y ago

For most of us, it doesn't actually work that way. Folks like you've mentioned don't take on work unless you're a non-profit. And a pro-bono attorney generally won't touch a case like I mentioned, speaking as someone who asked multiple attorneys.

pornel 11y ago

Apple has been selling closed-source knock-off of my GPL app for 6 months after acknowledging they've received my takedown request. They've eventually took it down, but they haven't notified users and kept the money. I've asked sfconservancy and fsf for help, but they wouldn't take the case.