11 ms·

Why companies don't do GPL enforcement

98 points by corbet 10y ago

CalChris 10y ago
I know! I know! Pick me! Cuz like litigation is hella expensive and that's so mega dumb if you're just like giving the software away and stuff.
- deepsun 10y ago
  Actually, litigation is only "hella expensive" in USA. In other countries, litigation also costs money, time, and nerves, but not that expensive. And in general, startups spend way less resources on legal team. People just don't sue each other that often as in US, although I don't know the reasons, maybe people break the law also way less, don't know.
  - pnut 10y ago
    I think in the us, there is no penalty for suing other than your court costs, so there is more of it. I believe other countries require the plaintiff to cover legal expenses of all parties if they lose, versus in the us, people strategically sue other entities specifically to inflict financial harm or ruin (see Donald Trump for an egregious example of this). Consequently many fewer frivolous or financially motivated revenge lawsuits.
    - nikanj 10y ago
      Wait, in the US you don't have to pay the costs incurred on the other party if you lose your case?
      - danielweber 10y ago
        Only in extreme situations, like when it was very clear that your case had no merit, or when explicitly called for by statute, which is a small number of situations (like SLAPP suits).
      - cstejerean 10y ago
        Pretty much what danielweber said. If you are curious to learn more about the "American Rule" and related exceptions you can read more about it here http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/attorney-fees-does-losing-side-30337.html http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/attorney-fees-does-lo...
  - sseveran 10y ago
    I would dispute that expensive litigation is a US only phenomenon. I have had much higher legal fees in Brazil than the US.
kbrosnan 10y ago
Written by Luis Villa [1] a lawyer with 15+ years of experience working with opens source communities. [1] https://mobile.twitter.com/luis_in_140/status/841073636127662080 https://mobile.twitter.com/luis_in_140/status/84107363612766...
Drumlin 10y ago
Everyone wants an easy and stress free life. If you create a reputation for yourself of chasing competitors through the courts then you make yourself into a target. "Do to others as you would have them do to you".
advisedwang 10y ago
There are other reasons not to do GPL enforcement too, which Greg K-H sums up very well: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-discuss/2016-August/003578.html https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-discuss/... Summary: Open Source lives and dies by community and engagement. Lawsuits make people disengage. Better to spend your resources working with people to get them to come around gently.
- paxcoder 10y ago
  >get [people] to come around gently That's GPL enforcement. This is mostly how FSF, SFLC et al do it and they win battles. Recently they're actually waging a legal one against VMWare but I don't see the company deterred from contributing as much as they did before. Would be nice if they contributed more. I don't think we should care about proprietary makers' feelings here. What hurts free software more is FUD and villification of copyleft.
  - charlesdm 10y ago
    I don't care if I get downvoted for this, but what hurts free software is licensing under the GPL. It's a cancer that infects anything it is compiled into. There's a _TON_ of amazing software out there, which sadly is licensed under the GPL, so it just can't be used in something proprietary, because it would mean open sourcing your entire codebase. What's the point of open sourcing something if it can't be used in a proprietary product? At least release it under a license so that it can be used + allow the users to contribute their changes back to the original codebase. Plenty of companies will do this, but only if they can actually use it in their app or software. GPL code is, unless it's run in a self contained process, for all intents and purposes useless.
    - __jal 10y ago
      1995 called, it wants its bad arguments back. The honest answer is that people releasing software under the GPL don't want you using their code in your proprietary whatever. They explicitly said they don't want you to do that. How is that different than you releasing your proprietary whatever, and conditioning use on paying you money and agreeing not to share it? If you get to set the terms of use of your code, so do other people. > What's the point of open sourcing something if it can't be used in a proprietary product? Obviously, the point is to share it with people who want to do something other than use it in a proprietary product. Complaining about free gifts generally doesn't end very well. Don't like the terms? Pretend it is Oracle or Microsoft crown-jewel code. You can't do what you want with that, either.
phkahler 10y ago
As I was reading this, I started thinking those options enable a company to exert influence over others in a way that a BSD or MIT license do not. It almost seemed like an argument to prefer the GPL - at least for major contributors.
oliwarner 10y ago
It's frustrating that in every software licensing thread on HN people utterly miss the point of the GPL. It's not there for developers, or businesses, it's there for users. GPL protects users' freedoms. Like the freedom to use it however they like (no 90-page EULA), the freedom to actually know what's running on their computer, freedom to change it and share changes. But what is most annoying here is TFA doesn't really talk about this either. Protecting users is another factor when weighing up GPL enforcement strategies. If you put GPL code in a pacemaker that millions of people have, there's a very strong argument to ensure users of that can inspect the source.

98 points by corbet 10y ago

I know! I know! Pick me! Cuz like litigation is hella expensive and that's so mega dumb if you're just like giving the software away and stuff.

deepsun 10y ago
Actually, litigation is only "hella expensive" in USA. In other countries, litigation also costs money, time, and nerves, but not that expensive. And in general, startups spend way less resources on legal team. People just don't sue each other that often as in US, although I don't know the reasons, maybe people break the law also way less, don't know.
- pnut 10y ago
  I think in the us, there is no penalty for suing other than your court costs, so there is more of it. I believe other countries require the plaintiff to cover legal expenses of all parties if they lose, versus in the us, people strategically sue other entities specifically to inflict financial harm or ruin (see Donald Trump for an egregious example of this). Consequently many fewer frivolous or financially motivated revenge lawsuits.
  - nikanj 10y ago
    Wait, in the US you don't have to pay the costs incurred on the other party if you lose your case?
    - danielweber 10y ago
      Only in extreme situations, like when it was very clear that your case had no merit, or when explicitly called for by statute, which is a small number of situations (like SLAPP suits).
    - cstejerean 10y ago
      Pretty much what danielweber said. If you are curious to learn more about the "American Rule" and related exceptions you can read more about it here http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/attorney-fees-does-losing-side-30337.html http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/attorney-fees-does-lo...
- sseveran 10y ago
  I would dispute that expensive litigation is a US only phenomenon. I have had much higher legal fees in Brazil than the US.

kbrosnan 10y ago

Written by Luis Villa [1] a lawyer with 15+ years of experience working with opens source communities. [1] https://mobile.twitter.com/luis_in_140/status/841073636127662080 https://mobile.twitter.com/luis_in_140/status/84107363612766...

Drumlin 10y ago

Everyone wants an easy and stress free life. If you create a reputation for yourself of chasing competitors through the courts then you make yourself into a target. "Do to others as you would have them do to you".

advisedwang 10y ago

There are other reasons not to do GPL enforcement too, which Greg K-H sums up very well: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-discuss/2016-August/003578.html https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-discuss/... Summary: Open Source lives and dies by community and engagement. Lawsuits make people disengage. Better to spend your resources working with people to get them to come around gently.

paxcoder 10y ago
>get [people] to come around gently That's GPL enforcement. This is mostly how FSF, SFLC et al do it and they win battles. Recently they're actually waging a legal one against VMWare but I don't see the company deterred from contributing as much as they did before. Would be nice if they contributed more. I don't think we should care about proprietary makers' feelings here. What hurts free software more is FUD and villification of copyleft.
- charlesdm 10y ago
  I don't care if I get downvoted for this, but what hurts free software is licensing under the GPL. It's a cancer that infects anything it is compiled into. There's a _TON_ of amazing software out there, which sadly is licensed under the GPL, so it just can't be used in something proprietary, because it would mean open sourcing your entire codebase. What's the point of open sourcing something if it can't be used in a proprietary product? At least release it under a license so that it can be used + allow the users to contribute their changes back to the original codebase. Plenty of companies will do this, but only if they can actually use it in their app or software. GPL code is, unless it's run in a self contained process, for all intents and purposes useless.
  - __jal 10y ago
    1995 called, it wants its bad arguments back. The honest answer is that people releasing software under the GPL don't want you using their code in your proprietary whatever. They explicitly said they don't want you to do that. How is that different than you releasing your proprietary whatever, and conditioning use on paying you money and agreeing not to share it? If you get to set the terms of use of your code, so do other people. > What's the point of open sourcing something if it can't be used in a proprietary product? Obviously, the point is to share it with people who want to do something other than use it in a proprietary product. Complaining about free gifts generally doesn't end very well. Don't like the terms? Pretend it is Oracle or Microsoft crown-jewel code. You can't do what you want with that, either.

phkahler 10y ago

As I was reading this, I started thinking those options enable a company to exert influence over others in a way that a BSD or MIT license do not. It almost seemed like an argument to prefer the GPL - at least for major contributors.

oliwarner 10y ago

It's frustrating that in every software licensing thread on HN people utterly miss the point of the GPL. It's not there for developers, or businesses, it's there for users. GPL protects users' freedoms. Like the freedom to use it however they like (no 90-page EULA), the freedom to actually know what's running on their computer, freedom to change it and share changes. But what is most annoying here is TFA doesn't really talk about this either. Protecting users is another factor when weighing up GPL enforcement strategies. If you put GPL code in a pacemaker that millions of people have, there's a very strong argument to ensure users of that can inspect the source.