5 ms·

If it was under WTFL, the company would be able to release everything closed-source, which is exactly what the open source community is trying to discourage. I

If it was under WTFL, the company would be able to release everything closed-source, which is exactly what the open source community is trying to discourage. It also makes no sense to sue the companies violating the licenses. They would be more inclined to move to a closed-source option with a known fee, since the very product you are using has an ambiguous cost attached to it. For example, I have deep disdain for people who build up WordPress or Drupal sites for clients and flat out refuse to let the customer have their code, but that still doesn't mean they should get sued to oblivion, no matter how much I disagree with this practice. If you are for open source, you want to actively encourage the use of these platforms (regardless if you think they are trash) instead of having these people move over to some equally bad system. This is worse for the OSS community. It's also worse for the customer, since hidden fees for MS or Oracle will be tacked onto the product price. If word got out, even those who follow GPLv2 to a T would have reason to be nervous, so they'd just migrate off the platform as well.

sametmax 9y ago
> If it was under WTFL, the company would be able to release everything closed-source, which is exactly what the open source community is trying to discourage. Apparently they already can. If there is no enforcement, what prevents anybody from doing it ? Good will. > but that still doesn't mean they should get sued to oblivion, no matter how much I disagree with this practice. Remove "should" and "to oblivion", and the result seems reasonable. After all, we can't give tickets like for speeding for those infraction. The only problem with sueing here is the cost of it. But it's perfectly alright from a moral point of view. People worked hard, sometimes for free, for free software to exist, out of idealism. The only thing they demand is to accept the licence.
- wiz21c 9y ago
  Yup, all of that is strange. Because if enforcement is rare, then a simple risk analysis allows everyone to leech without contributing back. Even more so if the only punishment you may have is "comply" (publishing code that is tied to your own personal hardware is not that much a problem, I think). Now that everybody knows the true political aim of the GPLv3 and that we know the pragmatism of BSD and others, I wonder under what license would the kernel have been published today...
  - tpxl 9y ago
    >publishing code that is tied to your own personal hardware is not that much a problem, I think Code tied to your own hardware can lead to reverse engineering and creating other software to be used with said hardware. This is a good thing (for the user) though.
- icebraining 9y ago
  The only thing they demand is to accept the licence. Well, the problem here is that they're actually demanding a few million euros.
boomlinde 9y ago
> It also makes no sense to sue the companies violating the licenses. They would be more inclined to move to a closed-source option with a known fee, since the very product you are using has an ambiguous cost attached to it. It makes perfect sense to sue a company that fails to comply with the license. What doesn't make sense is for anyone with a two line contribution to the kernel to sue anyone for not complying with the license. I like the way free software enforcement organizations approach this currently. Represent the community as a whole, ask nicely first, sue if that doesn't lead to compliance. > For example, I have deep disdain for people who build up WordPress or Drupal sites for clients and flat out refuse to let the customer have their code, but that still doesn't mean they should get sued to oblivion, no matter how much I disagree with this practice. It means that they should comply with the license or possibly face legal consequences. If that means that they'll get sued to oblivion, that's their responsibility. If the customer can't see the code, however, there's a chance that the customer doesn't have a copy of the software (e.g. if it's running on a server that the contractor is maintaining) in which case GPLv2 doesn't give the customer the right to see the code making the example completely irrelevant. > If you are for open source, you want to actively encourage the use of these platforms (regardless if you think they are trash) instead of having these people move over to some equally bad system. This is worse for the OSS community. Why would I want to encourage anyone to build a platform using my GPLv2 software if they don't honor the license? Their use of my software gives no value to me if their changes aren't public. If a system is built on a Linux kernel that we never get to see the source of, its value compared to "some equally bad system" is exactly that, equal. It's proprietary software, and the only difference from some other proprietary system is that it's also illegal. So as the proprietor of a piece of GPL software that gets used illegally, you're given the choice of a) having the non-compliant user continue violating your rights, the free software community having absolutely nothing to gain from it, or b) having the non-compliant user forced by a court to comply with the license, release the contribution and pay damages to you. The choice seems simple. > It's also worse for the customer, since hidden fees for MS or Oracle will be tacked onto the product price. In which case the company will have a hard time competing with the many others that are able to honor free software licenses and both benefit from and contribute to the free software community. How bad is that? > If word got out, even those who follow GPLv2 to a T would have reason to be nervous, so they'd just migrate off the platform as well. It's a very simple license to honor. If you don't want to honor it it means that you are either too lazy to care about licenses or that you've made changes of a proprietary nature that you don't want to share. Either way, malevolent.

sametmax 9y ago

> If it was under WTFL, the company would be able to release everything closed-source, which is exactly what the open source community is trying to discourage. Apparently they already can. If there is no enforcement, what prevents anybody from doing it ? Good will. > but that still doesn't mean they should get sued to oblivion, no matter how much I disagree with this practice. Remove "should" and "to oblivion", and the result seems reasonable. After all, we can't give tickets like for speeding for those infraction. The only problem with sueing here is the cost of it. But it's perfectly alright from a moral point of view. People worked hard, sometimes for free, for free software to exist, out of idealism. The only thing they demand is to accept the licence.

wiz21c 9y ago
Yup, all of that is strange. Because if enforcement is rare, then a simple risk analysis allows everyone to leech without contributing back. Even more so if the only punishment you may have is "comply" (publishing code that is tied to your own personal hardware is not that much a problem, I think). Now that everybody knows the true political aim of the GPLv3 and that we know the pragmatism of BSD and others, I wonder under what license would the kernel have been published today...
- tpxl 9y ago
  >publishing code that is tied to your own personal hardware is not that much a problem, I think Code tied to your own hardware can lead to reverse engineering and creating other software to be used with said hardware. This is a good thing (for the user) though.
icebraining 9y ago
The only thing they demand is to accept the licence. Well, the problem here is that they're actually demanding a few million euros.

boomlinde 9y ago

> It also makes no sense to sue the companies violating the licenses. They would be more inclined to move to a closed-source option with a known fee, since the very product you are using has an ambiguous cost attached to it. It makes perfect sense to sue a company that fails to comply with the license. What doesn't make sense is for anyone with a two line contribution to the kernel to sue anyone for not complying with the license. I like the way free software enforcement organizations approach this currently. Represent the community as a whole, ask nicely first, sue if that doesn't lead to compliance. > For example, I have deep disdain for people who build up WordPress or Drupal sites for clients and flat out refuse to let the customer have their code, but that still doesn't mean they should get sued to oblivion, no matter how much I disagree with this practice. It means that they should comply with the license or possibly face legal consequences. If that means that they'll get sued to oblivion, that's their responsibility. If the customer can't see the code, however, there's a chance that the customer doesn't have a copy of the software (e.g. if it's running on a server that the contractor is maintaining) in which case GPLv2 doesn't give the customer the right to see the code making the example completely irrelevant. > If you are for open source, you want to actively encourage the use of these platforms (regardless if you think they are trash) instead of having these people move over to some equally bad system. This is worse for the OSS community. Why would I want to encourage anyone to build a platform using my GPLv2 software if they don't honor the license? Their use of my software gives no value to me if their changes aren't public. If a system is built on a Linux kernel that we never get to see the source of, its value compared to "some equally bad system" is exactly that, equal. It's proprietary software, and the only difference from some other proprietary system is that it's also illegal. So as the proprietor of a piece of GPL software that gets used illegally, you're given the choice of a) having the non-compliant user continue violating your rights, the free software community having absolutely nothing to gain from it, or b) having the non-compliant user forced by a court to comply with the license, release the contribution and pay damages to you. The choice seems simple. > It's also worse for the customer, since hidden fees for MS or Oracle will be tacked onto the product price. In which case the company will have a hard time competing with the many others that are able to honor free software licenses and both benefit from and contribute to the free software community. How bad is that? > If word got out, even those who follow GPLv2 to a T would have reason to be nervous, so they'd just migrate off the platform as well. It's a very simple license to honor. If you don't want to honor it it means that you are either too lazy to care about licenses or that you've made changes of a proprietary nature that you don't want to share. Either way, malevolent.