4 ms·

If anyone needed another reason to avoid GPL software here you go. I thought the whole idea of open source was to avoid litigious assholes.

pjmlp 9y ago
Idea of GPL is that developers are also users from someone's else work, and everyone on the chain is entitled to get the source code. If you prefer to give the work for free, without strings attached, then don't complain companies are evil and such. People bash GPL, but had Linux and GNU did not exist, and most likely everyone would still be using Solaris, Aix, HP-UX, DG/UX, Irix, Tru64,.... I have my doubts the BSDs would have had the same industry adoption.
antonvs 9y ago
If the companies being targeted hadn't violated the GPL, they wouldn't be subject to lawsuits like these. So this is "another reason" not to violate the GPL. It doesn't affect compliant GPL users. > I thought the whole idea of open source was to avoid litigious assholes. It sounds as though you're anti-GPL, so perhaps in this case the distinction between "open source" and GPL-style "free software" is relevant. The GPL imposes a significant requirement on users, which is that if you make changes to GPL software and distribute that software, you must make the source code to those changes available. This has nothing to do with "avoiding litigious assholes", so your assessment of the "whole idea" is not accurate when it comes to GPL software.
- paulsutter 9y ago
  Oh really? Have you ever been involved in litigation? Cases are presented based on arcane points and decided by a nontechnical jury. Trial lawyers focus on jury selection and aren’t interested in facts. Even egregiously false nuisance cases get settled because of reputational risk and cost of litigation.
  - antonvs 9y ago
    Sounds like you're not actually here to discuss the GPL or open source.
    - paulsutter 9y ago
      I'm here to discuss litigation trolls, which are no different in copyright than in patents.
rdtsc 9y ago
> I thought the whole idea of open source was to avoid litigious assholes. How is that? Not sure what you mean. Writing everything from scratch in-house is how you usually avoid litigious assholes. When using someone else's stuff it is a good idea to comply with the licensing terms. That's also a valid strategy to avoid litigation.
- SmellyGeekBoy 9y ago
  I'm pretty sure GP barely skimmed the headline, saw that it somehow confirmed their own preconceived ideas, saw an opportunity to attack open source, and posted a comment to that effect. It's barely worth the effort of downvoting, let alone a considered reply.
- ceejayoz 9y ago
  > Writing everything from scratch in-house is how you usually avoid litigious assholes. Nah, that just gets you a patent suit.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - rdtsc 9y ago
    I meant in regard to copyright. Can still get a patent suit even if using open source software.
watwut 9y ago
That is not what the history was. They were way more radical then that.
emiliobumachar 9y ago
Upvoted despite the tone, because this argument is the perfect answer to all those questioning why the mainstream open source community does not agree with McHardy's style of enforcement.

pjmlp 9y ago

Idea of GPL is that developers are also users from someone's else work, and everyone on the chain is entitled to get the source code. If you prefer to give the work for free, without strings attached, then don't complain companies are evil and such. People bash GPL, but had Linux and GNU did not exist, and most likely everyone would still be using Solaris, Aix, HP-UX, DG/UX, Irix, Tru64,.... I have my doubts the BSDs would have had the same industry adoption.

antonvs 9y ago

If the companies being targeted hadn't violated the GPL, they wouldn't be subject to lawsuits like these. So this is "another reason" not to violate the GPL. It doesn't affect compliant GPL users. > I thought the whole idea of open source was to avoid litigious assholes. It sounds as though you're anti-GPL, so perhaps in this case the distinction between "open source" and GPL-style "free software" is relevant. The GPL imposes a significant requirement on users, which is that if you make changes to GPL software and distribute that software, you must make the source code to those changes available. This has nothing to do with "avoiding litigious assholes", so your assessment of the "whole idea" is not accurate when it comes to GPL software.

paulsutter 9y ago
Oh really? Have you ever been involved in litigation? Cases are presented based on arcane points and decided by a nontechnical jury. Trial lawyers focus on jury selection and aren’t interested in facts. Even egregiously false nuisance cases get settled because of reputational risk and cost of litigation.
- antonvs 9y ago
  Sounds like you're not actually here to discuss the GPL or open source.
  - paulsutter 9y ago
    I'm here to discuss litigation trolls, which are no different in copyright than in patents.

rdtsc 9y ago

> I thought the whole idea of open source was to avoid litigious assholes. How is that? Not sure what you mean. Writing everything from scratch in-house is how you usually avoid litigious assholes. When using someone else's stuff it is a good idea to comply with the licensing terms. That's also a valid strategy to avoid litigation.

SmellyGeekBoy 9y ago
I'm pretty sure GP barely skimmed the headline, saw that it somehow confirmed their own preconceived ideas, saw an opportunity to attack open source, and posted a comment to that effect. It's barely worth the effort of downvoting, let alone a considered reply.
ceejayoz 9y ago
> Writing everything from scratch in-house is how you usually avoid litigious assholes. Nah, that just gets you a patent suit.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- rdtsc 9y ago
  I meant in regard to copyright. Can still get a patent suit even if using open source software.

watwut 9y ago

That is not what the history was. They were way more radical then that.

emiliobumachar 9y ago

Upvoted despite the tone, because this argument is the perfect answer to all those questioning why the mainstream open source community does not agree with McHardy's style of enforcement.