7 ms·

Are you a lawyer? If not, you would be doing a disservice to anyone curious about the topic. My own company's lawyers consider the GPLv3 toxic and not allowed

Are you a lawyer? If not, you would be doing a disservice to anyone curious about the topic. My own company's lawyers consider the GPLv3 toxic and not allowed at all for company use in any software we create - that's enough for me.

arca_vorago 9y ago
Usually it is the lawyers doing people a disservice actually. That said, Eben Moglen is who I would refer you to. (Has been the lawyer for the FSF and RMS I think) Read the slide in the first few seconds. Does that look familiar to you? https://youtu.be/okEQt-Rla7o?t=863 https://youtu.be/okEQt-Rla7o?t=863
- mseebach 9y ago
  The lawyers who would actually have to put their neck on the line says no. Eben Moglen is a campaigner, not anyone's lawyer (in the matter of defending a software product including GNU licensed components). The license actually isn't that long and the only argument on what it really means is going to take place in a courtroom in a carefully chosen district in Texas in front of a judge and jury that aren't quite comfortable operating 4-function pocket calculators. (And the defendant, by the way, isn't going to be some wholesome main street software outfit, it's going to be the nastiest, most ruthless gang you can imagine. 90% of the software community is going to on the record hating their living guts, you can bet Moglen, never mind RMS, is going to be nowhere to be seen given an impassioned defense of the legality of this company's use of GPLv3, regardless of how perfectly compatible it is with the promises they make now (FSF will submit a brief, but they are going to be very discreet about it). But the result will decide the legal interpretation of GPLv3 forever.) That is the mental image of your company's lawyers when you ask about GPLv3. This discussion sometimes feels like like the PHB telling Dilbert to go base the product on Oracle because of an article in CIO Monthly ("written by an EXPERT!") says it's the best database.
rmc 9y ago
> My own company's lawyers consider the GPLv3 toxic and not allowed at all for company use in any software we create - that's enough for me. Isn't that often because the GPL would require you to release your source code? Which is different from possible patent problems? I can understand why companies don't want to release their source code, but at least it's clear ("release your code and you can't be sued"), right?
- fasquoika 9y ago
  IIRC the GPL actually has an explicit patent grant
baybal2 9y ago
Why you ask lawyers on a matter concerning computer programmers? I have yet to see a single "professional IP lawyer" who knew more about GPL than an average IT pro. The was majority simply puts forwards claims without doing a minute of actual research on GPL
- grzm 9y ago
  Licensing and patents are legal matters, and as such, one should consult a lawyer (to be sure, one knowledgeable in the domain) if it may impact one's business.
  - Bahamut 9y ago
    Not only that, there is legal precedent where just the act of software developers discussing IP matters has a negative effect in cases. It absolutely is a matter for lawyers, as the reason they are around is to guard against such pitfalls - it is their domain of expertise.
csdreamer7 9y ago
> Are you a lawyer? If not, you would be doing a disservice to anyone curious about the topic. > My own company's lawyers consider the GPLv3 toxic and not allowed at all for company use in any software we create - that's enough for me. Don't just blindly defer to lawyers. Yes, including GPL source code in a proprietary product could sink your company's business model. But using a GPL webserver is no threat. Nor using Linux as a set top box to run your local application (Roku). Nor using GCC to compile the program. (Alot of Playstation 1 games used GCC.) Your own company's lawyers may be very ignorant on the GPL and it's benefits. They may simply not understand and are relying on other people to inform them. (I believe Microsoft's old attacks against the GPL used the word toxic.) I knew a contract lawyer who called the GPL 'very restrictive'. I pointed out the Windows EULA. He never really read it to understand it's far more restrictive terms. He never really looked at a EULA through a lawyer's lens and how much his business would suffer if the the terms were actually exercised. Nor that he didn't have to accept the GPL to use GPL software. Only to redistribute it. I doubt he could find that permissiveness in an EULA. Lawrence Lessig made a few comments that his lawyer friends couldn't understand how Creative Commons licenses worked. People that have never met each other had legally agreed to binding license. This was in the early 2000's.
DiThi 9y ago
Your lawyers probably don't know the difference between a tool and a library that is used in a published product. The code of a GPL licensed internal tool is not linked to the product (in the programming sense: there's no "object linking" or mixing of the code). You don't even need to release the source to the public if the tool itself is not available to the public.

arca_vorago 9y ago

Usually it is the lawyers doing people a disservice actually. That said, Eben Moglen is who I would refer you to. (Has been the lawyer for the FSF and RMS I think) Read the slide in the first few seconds. Does that look familiar to you? https://youtu.be/okEQt-Rla7o?t=863 https://youtu.be/okEQt-Rla7o?t=863

mseebach 9y ago
The lawyers who would actually have to put their neck on the line says no. Eben Moglen is a campaigner, not anyone's lawyer (in the matter of defending a software product including GNU licensed components). The license actually isn't that long and the only argument on what it really means is going to take place in a courtroom in a carefully chosen district in Texas in front of a judge and jury that aren't quite comfortable operating 4-function pocket calculators. (And the defendant, by the way, isn't going to be some wholesome main street software outfit, it's going to be the nastiest, most ruthless gang you can imagine. 90% of the software community is going to on the record hating their living guts, you can bet Moglen, never mind RMS, is going to be nowhere to be seen given an impassioned defense of the legality of this company's use of GPLv3, regardless of how perfectly compatible it is with the promises they make now (FSF will submit a brief, but they are going to be very discreet about it). But the result will decide the legal interpretation of GPLv3 forever.) That is the mental image of your company's lawyers when you ask about GPLv3. This discussion sometimes feels like like the PHB telling Dilbert to go base the product on Oracle because of an article in CIO Monthly ("written by an EXPERT!") says it's the best database.

rmc 9y ago

> My own company's lawyers consider the GPLv3 toxic and not allowed at all for company use in any software we create - that's enough for me. Isn't that often because the GPL would require you to release your source code? Which is different from possible patent problems? I can understand why companies don't want to release their source code, but at least it's clear ("release your code and you can't be sued"), right?

fasquoika 9y ago
IIRC the GPL actually has an explicit patent grant

baybal2 9y ago

Why you ask lawyers on a matter concerning computer programmers? I have yet to see a single "professional IP lawyer" who knew more about GPL than an average IT pro. The was majority simply puts forwards claims without doing a minute of actual research on GPL

grzm 9y ago
Licensing and patents are legal matters, and as such, one should consult a lawyer (to be sure, one knowledgeable in the domain) if it may impact one's business.
- Bahamut 9y ago
  Not only that, there is legal precedent where just the act of software developers discussing IP matters has a negative effect in cases. It absolutely is a matter for lawyers, as the reason they are around is to guard against such pitfalls - it is their domain of expertise.

csdreamer7 9y ago

> Are you a lawyer? If not, you would be doing a disservice to anyone curious about the topic. > My own company's lawyers consider the GPLv3 toxic and not allowed at all for company use in any software we create - that's enough for me. Don't just blindly defer to lawyers. Yes, including GPL source code in a proprietary product could sink your company's business model. But using a GPL webserver is no threat. Nor using Linux as a set top box to run your local application (Roku). Nor using GCC to compile the program. (Alot of Playstation 1 games used GCC.) Your own company's lawyers may be very ignorant on the GPL and it's benefits. They may simply not understand and are relying on other people to inform them. (I believe Microsoft's old attacks against the GPL used the word toxic.) I knew a contract lawyer who called the GPL 'very restrictive'. I pointed out the Windows EULA. He never really read it to understand it's far more restrictive terms. He never really looked at a EULA through a lawyer's lens and how much his business would suffer if the the terms were actually exercised. Nor that he didn't have to accept the GPL to use GPL software. Only to redistribute it. I doubt he could find that permissiveness in an EULA. Lawrence Lessig made a few comments that his lawyer friends couldn't understand how Creative Commons licenses worked. People that have never met each other had legally agreed to binding license. This was in the early 2000's.

DiThi 9y ago

Your lawyers probably don't know the difference between a tool and a library that is used in a published product. The code of a GPL licensed internal tool is not linked to the product (in the programming sense: there's no "object linking" or mixing of the code). You don't even need to release the source to the public if the tool itself is not available to the public.