4 ms·

> 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

> 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.

dizzystar 9y ago
I agree in some sense. My issue is pulling the trigger to fast and too hard, and there doesn't seem to be a good answer to that. Even though I do my best to follow licenses, I may be making a mistake somewhere. If I heard a case where was sued for $1M to a GPLv2 software, I'd strongly consider moving over to a propriety product and pay $10 a month to mitigate my risk. Remember that every uninstall is one less user, which is one less incentive to maintain the product, and once that gets close to zero, it's game over.
- pbhjpbhj 9y ago
  If you heard of a case where someone without a driving license was punished, would you - having done your due diligence to get a license and conky with its requirements - get worried you also would be punished and so choose to always take taxis? Are these non-compliant companies using cracked versions of other closed-source software? I'll bet they pay for their MS licenses, because they know MS will sue them if they don't.
  - dizzystar 9y ago
    Of course there are companies using cracked versions of software. We also know kids use all sorts of cracked software as well. The reason they don't get sued is because the companies know that it is bad blood to sue. They know that, in the future, these kids will be running offices and they will buy that software they loved. Granted, the goodwill ends up with money coming in, but it's the same theory with open source. Most large projects are backed by companies that earn millions. The idea of a single dude doing free work is often times a myth.
- boomlinde 9y ago
  > Even though I do my best to follow licenses, I may be making a mistake somewhere. There are plenty of resources available on how to comply and how to setup a process to minimize this risk. Simply dump all the versions and licenses of third party software you use to a file and accompany your distribution with a written offer to share the source code or links to their official repositories if they are unmodified. > If I heard a case where was sued for $1M to a GPLv2 software, I'd strongly consider moving over to a propriety product and pay $10 a month to mitigate my risk. You're considering this from the perspective of an end user? Let me clarify that the limitations of GPLv2 kick into effect once you distribute software. As far as respecting copyright goes, you can use GPL software and modify it freely without any legal forethought. It's when you distribute such software that you'd get in trouble by not also sharing the source code. In fact, this is better for the consumer, who will be able to use the bundled GPLv2 licensed software without buying the product. > Remember that every uninstall is one less user, which is one less incentive to maintain the product, and once that gets close to zero, it's game over. This implies that the amount of users is the only incentive when it really is not, For one, some users are more important than other users. Companies like Intel, Google, IBM, SUSE, Red Hat and AMD are important users in that they also make significant contributions to the kernel for their own benefit. There is a huge incentive for these to contribute back even if they don't need to distribute their changes because getting it into the mainline kernel simplifies maintenance. Whether some Shenzhen set top box that violates the GPL uses Linux doesn't make a difference. If anything, their continued illicit use detracts from the credibility of the license and discourages contributors that give a hoot about people respecting their individual property and the overall philosophy of free software. Then, particularly for smaller projects than the kernel, there are the individual contributors who are usually users of the software they contribute to. I think you've maybe made the connection "users == customers" where there is none. In those terms, companies that ignore free software licenses are simply pirates.

dizzystar 9y ago

I agree in some sense. My issue is pulling the trigger to fast and too hard, and there doesn't seem to be a good answer to that. Even though I do my best to follow licenses, I may be making a mistake somewhere. If I heard a case where was sued for $1M to a GPLv2 software, I'd strongly consider moving over to a propriety product and pay $10 a month to mitigate my risk. Remember that every uninstall is one less user, which is one less incentive to maintain the product, and once that gets close to zero, it's game over.

pbhjpbhj 9y ago
If you heard of a case where someone without a driving license was punished, would you - having done your due diligence to get a license and conky with its requirements - get worried you also would be punished and so choose to always take taxis? Are these non-compliant companies using cracked versions of other closed-source software? I'll bet they pay for their MS licenses, because they know MS will sue them if they don't.
- dizzystar 9y ago
  Of course there are companies using cracked versions of software. We also know kids use all sorts of cracked software as well. The reason they don't get sued is because the companies know that it is bad blood to sue. They know that, in the future, these kids will be running offices and they will buy that software they loved. Granted, the goodwill ends up with money coming in, but it's the same theory with open source. Most large projects are backed by companies that earn millions. The idea of a single dude doing free work is often times a myth.
boomlinde 9y ago
> Even though I do my best to follow licenses, I may be making a mistake somewhere. There are plenty of resources available on how to comply and how to setup a process to minimize this risk. Simply dump all the versions and licenses of third party software you use to a file and accompany your distribution with a written offer to share the source code or links to their official repositories if they are unmodified. > If I heard a case where was sued for $1M to a GPLv2 software, I'd strongly consider moving over to a propriety product and pay $10 a month to mitigate my risk. You're considering this from the perspective of an end user? Let me clarify that the limitations of GPLv2 kick into effect once you distribute software. As far as respecting copyright goes, you can use GPL software and modify it freely without any legal forethought. It's when you distribute such software that you'd get in trouble by not also sharing the source code. In fact, this is better for the consumer, who will be able to use the bundled GPLv2 licensed software without buying the product. > Remember that every uninstall is one less user, which is one less incentive to maintain the product, and once that gets close to zero, it's game over. This implies that the amount of users is the only incentive when it really is not, For one, some users are more important than other users. Companies like Intel, Google, IBM, SUSE, Red Hat and AMD are important users in that they also make significant contributions to the kernel for their own benefit. There is a huge incentive for these to contribute back even if they don't need to distribute their changes because getting it into the mainline kernel simplifies maintenance. Whether some Shenzhen set top box that violates the GPL uses Linux doesn't make a difference. If anything, their continued illicit use detracts from the credibility of the license and discourages contributors that give a hoot about people respecting their individual property and the overall philosophy of free software. Then, particularly for smaller projects than the kernel, there are the individual contributors who are usually users of the software they contribute to. I think you've maybe made the connection "users == customers" where there is none. In those terms, companies that ignore free software licenses are simply pirates.