6 ms·
Having been inside Google I can say I did not see any reasonable justification of the crazy hysterical anti-GPL and anti-AGPL position of the lawyers.
by infinity0 9y ago
Having been inside Google I can say I did not see any reasonable justification of the crazy hysterical anti-GPL and anti-AGPL position of the lawyers.
- Bartweiss 9y agoAll other questions aside, does this count as evidence that the AGPL closes a real loophole in the GPL? It looks like at least in this case, Google is hysterically anti-AGPL, but would actually welcome a switch to the GPL. Which, from a certain viewpoint, looks like an argument that the GPL is insufficient.
- mav3r1ck 9y agoYou don’t see why forcing the open sourcing of the entire Google codebase would be a problem? That’s essentially what GPL does, if you use even a tiny portion of it for your code and they prove it, you have to GPL ALL the source code from the same for base.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- infinity0 9y agoNobody is going to seriously argue that google3/ is a single piece of software.
- UncleMeat 9y agoWhen it is worth billions of dollars and judges often barely understand tech somebody will.
- amdavidson 9y agoDespite it being legal nonsense, it's all about finding the right Judge. Perhaps there is more bandwidth in Marshall, TX now that they don't have all those pesky patent cases.
- skybrian 9y agoI don't remember any hysteria. I do remember that they are strict about following the terms of software licenses, sometimes going beyond what most open source tools do. And being strict about this is a good thing, no? You can see a bit of that in Bazel: https://docs.bazel.build/versions/master/be/functions.html#licenses https://docs.bazel.build/versions/master/be/functions.html#l...