4 ms·

One more bit of evidence that the GPL may not be the best thing for Open Source software. Think about it: if CEF used GPL, Valve might not have used it fearing

One more bit of evidence that the GPL may not be the best thing for Open Source software. Think about it: if CEF used GPL, Valve might not have used it fearing that if they built Steam and decided they did not wish to release the source, they would have no choice but to not distribute Steam. With the BSD license, they could put in the work and decide once the project was complete whether or not to release the source code. But now we get a shiny new Steam and the source code. Epic win for everyone involved.

jmillikin 17y ago
The GPL cannot force somebody to release their source code.
- houseabsolute 17y ago
  You are mistaken if you believe that you can distribute an application built using GPL code and not release the source code (and all derived code) as well. In the event that you were confused by my wording, check again. I have attempted to clarify.
  - jmillikin 17y ago
    That's not what your original post said, and even now that you've edited it, it's still wrong. There is no requirement that Valve release source code for an internal development build, and just because GPL'd code was at one point used in Steam wouldn't prevent them from distributing it without source in the future. The GPL isn't some magical infective uber-license; it's just plain copyright.
    - houseabsolute 17y ago
      Right, it can't force them to release an internal build. But that's not what this is, it's an external beta. At this point they could still back out from releasing the source code if they wished, but not if they had used the GPL. If they had used a GPL program, they would at this point have to sacrifice a great deal of work to avoid releasing the source. That is my point. The GPL can force you to plan for things that you have no way of knowing about (For example, are we going to have to modify this program to couple with our internal APIs at a level that we don't want documented? Is the source code going to be ugly to an extent that it would be embarrassing to us to release it? etc.).
    - abrahamsen 17y ago
      The GPL can't force Valve to release source even if they had used GPL'ed code for an external release. However, a court could force Valve to stop distributing the infringing binary, and to pay damages to the owners of the GPL'ed code. It is possible that Valve would choose to release source for the steam client after negotiation with the owners of the CPL'ed code instead, but that would require agreement from both parties. And it is actually not totally unlikely that Valve would seek such a solution, the steam client represents a very little part of the total value of steam, the main value is in the content of their rights database, and in their reputation and connection with gamers and publishers.
- malkia 17y ago
  Check http://gpl-violations.org http://gpl-violations.org GPL cannot force somebody to release their source code, as long as they are not supposed to have the binary (for example, internal studio - you can use binary tools compiled ith GPL, and be happy knowing that that stuff does not go outside of the company). With GPL 3 I think that's changed, but IANAL.
ZeroGravitas 17y ago
If you don't see the irony in saying "GPL may not be the best thing for Open Source software" then you may not be fully grasping the issues.

jmillikin 17y ago

The GPL cannot force somebody to release their source code.

houseabsolute 17y ago
You are mistaken if you believe that you can distribute an application built using GPL code and not release the source code (and all derived code) as well. In the event that you were confused by my wording, check again. I have attempted to clarify.
- jmillikin 17y ago
  That's not what your original post said, and even now that you've edited it, it's still wrong. There is no requirement that Valve release source code for an internal development build, and just because GPL'd code was at one point used in Steam wouldn't prevent them from distributing it without source in the future. The GPL isn't some magical infective uber-license; it's just plain copyright.
  - houseabsolute 17y ago
    Right, it can't force them to release an internal build. But that's not what this is, it's an external beta. At this point they could still back out from releasing the source code if they wished, but not if they had used the GPL. If they had used a GPL program, they would at this point have to sacrifice a great deal of work to avoid releasing the source. That is my point. The GPL can force you to plan for things that you have no way of knowing about (For example, are we going to have to modify this program to couple with our internal APIs at a level that we don't want documented? Is the source code going to be ugly to an extent that it would be embarrassing to us to release it? etc.).
  - abrahamsen 17y ago
    The GPL can't force Valve to release source even if they had used GPL'ed code for an external release. However, a court could force Valve to stop distributing the infringing binary, and to pay damages to the owners of the GPL'ed code. It is possible that Valve would choose to release source for the steam client after negotiation with the owners of the CPL'ed code instead, but that would require agreement from both parties. And it is actually not totally unlikely that Valve would seek such a solution, the steam client represents a very little part of the total value of steam, the main value is in the content of their rights database, and in their reputation and connection with gamers and publishers.
malkia 17y ago
Check http://gpl-violations.org http://gpl-violations.org GPL cannot force somebody to release their source code, as long as they are not supposed to have the binary (for example, internal studio - you can use binary tools compiled ith GPL, and be happy knowing that that stuff does not go outside of the company). With GPL 3 I think that's changed, but IANAL.

ZeroGravitas 17y ago

If you don't see the irony in saying "GPL may not be the best thing for Open Source software" then you may not be fully grasping the issues.