4 ms·

You're not a lawyer. Lawyers at big companies accept Apache's demands and reject categorically GPLv3's. Doesn't matter what you or I think of software patents

You're not a lawyer. Lawyers at big companies accept Apache's demands and reject categorically GPLv3's. Doesn't matter what you or I think of software patents (yes, they should be banned). Doesn't matter what you or I think GPLv3 says. The lawyers at big companies see it as a problem, so it's a problem. End of discussion. No drama required; it's just the fact that big companies avoid using anything cursed with GPLv3.

paxcoder 11y ago
Unlike you, I have at least taken the time to read the relevant license parts before discussing them. Note that what you've argued before was very different from what you're saying now. You've narrowed the scope of the discussion (leaving out LGPL), but also its very nature ("legally impossible [1]", eh?). Anyway, companies do use software licensed under both licenses, and even incorporate them into their services - hence the need for AGPL. Maybe others wouldn't see GPLv3 as that much of a problem if people didn't spread FUD about its supposed "curse" ("no drama required" but you couldn't help it, huh?). And if they didn't defend harmful practices, like Linus does tivoisation. But mostly what companies avoid is copyleft, because it mandates reciprocity and prevents leeching the community. For projects such as these, LGPL is an acceptable compromise. The only valid argument against it is that apps under incompatible licenses will not be able to use it where dynamic linking is barred, and such is the requirement for apps in the Apple's store. However, in this particular case, that wouldn't be a problem either if the platform itself provided a decoder, like iOS does for PNGs.
- SomeCallMeTim 11y ago
  >Doesn't matter what you or I think GPLv3 says. I have read the license. I'm like that. And it still doesn't matter. It's what the lawyers think. And they say it's verboten.
  - paxcoder 11y ago
    There are only so many options here. Either: * You are lying that you read the license. * You were lying about what the license says. * You really dont want to admit that you have misunderstood the license. Either way, you were wrong then and you are wrong now about what the lawyers think. Speaking of which, there are only a few possibilities here as well, only these are not mutually exclusive: * You are intentionally dishonest because you have an agenda * You are dishonest just to cover your behind * You are genuinely careless about what you say Even if we change the word 'think' for 'say', it's still a gross overgeneralization. So all things considered, in the best case scenario, you refuse to admit when you are wrong, and will continue overgeneralizing. Forgive me, but it's really not worth the effort arguing under these circumstances. If you wanted to continue, you would have to make some concessions, but I doubt you will, so in all probability: Goodbye.
    - SomeCallMeTim 11y ago
      >You were lying about what the license says. I was reporting what I was told by corporate lawyers. My own reading of the patent section does happen to side with the lawyers' reading: That if you distribute an app that's protected by a patent you own a license to, that you need to arrange a sublicense for all users of that software. Maybe not technically "impossible," but I didn't count "spending millions of dollars to fix the problem" among the likely corporate responses when I said "impossible." Especially when most GPLv3 code can be written from scratch for less than the cost to license patents. Someone alleged Blizzard uses it; fine, their lawyers either disagree, weren't consulted, or are being ignored, but Blizzard doesn't make Chrome, Firefox, or Internet Explorer, so the point is moot if you care about web adoption, which would make the format relevant to anyone but a game developer. What matters is what the lawyers for the big companies that control Chrome and IE won't let GPLv3 code into the code base. Many other big company lawyers take the same position (probably all companies above some size threshold), and that's all I've been alleging from the start. Criticize my delivery all you want, but that's what I was trying to say. My agenda is to get the developers to change to a license that could actually be adopted into a web standard. Since you're refusing to actually read what I'm saying, I agree: Goodbye.
      - 11y ago

paxcoder 11y ago

Unlike you, I have at least taken the time to read the relevant license parts before discussing them. Note that what you've argued before was very different from what you're saying now. You've narrowed the scope of the discussion (leaving out LGPL), but also its very nature ("legally impossible [1]", eh?). Anyway, companies do use software licensed under both licenses, and even incorporate them into their services - hence the need for AGPL. Maybe others wouldn't see GPLv3 as that much of a problem if people didn't spread FUD about its supposed "curse" ("no drama required" but you couldn't help it, huh?). And if they didn't defend harmful practices, like Linus does tivoisation. But mostly what companies avoid is copyleft, because it mandates reciprocity and prevents leeching the community. For projects such as these, LGPL is an acceptable compromise. The only valid argument against it is that apps under incompatible licenses will not be able to use it where dynamic linking is barred, and such is the requirement for apps in the Apple's store. However, in this particular case, that wouldn't be a problem either if the platform itself provided a decoder, like iOS does for PNGs.

SomeCallMeTim 11y ago
>Doesn't matter what you or I think GPLv3 says. I have read the license. I'm like that. And it still doesn't matter. It's what the lawyers think. And they say it's verboten.
- paxcoder 11y ago
  There are only so many options here. Either: * You are lying that you read the license. * You were lying about what the license says. * You really dont want to admit that you have misunderstood the license. Either way, you were wrong then and you are wrong now about what the lawyers think. Speaking of which, there are only a few possibilities here as well, only these are not mutually exclusive: * You are intentionally dishonest because you have an agenda * You are dishonest just to cover your behind * You are genuinely careless about what you say Even if we change the word 'think' for 'say', it's still a gross overgeneralization. So all things considered, in the best case scenario, you refuse to admit when you are wrong, and will continue overgeneralizing. Forgive me, but it's really not worth the effort arguing under these circumstances. If you wanted to continue, you would have to make some concessions, but I doubt you will, so in all probability: Goodbye.
  - SomeCallMeTim 11y ago
    >You were lying about what the license says. I was reporting what I was told by corporate lawyers. My own reading of the patent section does happen to side with the lawyers' reading: That if you distribute an app that's protected by a patent you own a license to, that you need to arrange a sublicense for all users of that software. Maybe not technically "impossible," but I didn't count "spending millions of dollars to fix the problem" among the likely corporate responses when I said "impossible." Especially when most GPLv3 code can be written from scratch for less than the cost to license patents. Someone alleged Blizzard uses it; fine, their lawyers either disagree, weren't consulted, or are being ignored, but Blizzard doesn't make Chrome, Firefox, or Internet Explorer, so the point is moot if you care about web adoption, which would make the format relevant to anyone but a game developer. What matters is what the lawyers for the big companies that control Chrome and IE won't let GPLv3 code into the code base. Many other big company lawyers take the same position (probably all companies above some size threshold), and that's all I've been alleging from the start. Criticize my delivery all you want, but that's what I was trying to say. My agenda is to get the developers to change to a license that could actually be adopted into a web standard. Since you're refusing to actually read what I'm saying, I agree: Goodbye.
    - 11y ago