3 ms·

Maybe. At least our company won't touch GPL code; as one colleague described to me, if you violate a proprietary license, a company will come after you for mone

Maybe. At least our company won't touch GPL code; as one colleague described to me, if you violate a proprietary license, a company will come after you for money, while violating a GPL license gets the EFF involved who will come after you for your source code. I'm still wary, though. I could imagine if the resultant fines or source code releases from violating a GPL license weren't a strong enough deterrent, you could win by using a GPL-licensed product enough, then parry off attacks from EFF/FSF until you do a complete rewrite of the product underneath, then pay the fine/contribution to EFF/FSF while toppling the original company. If the company is big enough, and can afford enough good lawyers, there may be legal ways to get around laws. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7572332 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7572332

kevin_thibedeau 8y ago
The only claimants to your source code are those to whom you've distributed binaries built from GPL sources. Anyone else can pound sand.
- ktjfi 8y ago
  If you were the author of a GPL piece of code whose licence was violated, and the EFF came to you and said "we'll pay for the lawyers and in exchange we get publicity", most people would say yes.
- hisham_hm 8y ago
  not the case for AGPL: then it's everyone who has access to your online service built with the code.
  - j16sdiz 8y ago
    I don't think it works like that. This is a copyright license at its heart. It is a contract between the copyright-owner and the service owner. The end user is just 3rd party.
    - TeMPOraL 8y ago
      Wait, isn't the whole point of AGPL that the "user" entitled to the source code is now the service user, i.e. potentially everyone?
- lvh 8y ago
  That's true, but GGP comment mentioned AGPL presumably for a reason :)
geofft 8y ago
(Usually not the EFF; more likely Software Freedom Conservancy or someone. EFF is more digital rights and privacy stuff, not copyright.) A copyright holder can't get anything more from you by using the GPL. Infringement is infringement. The difference is that a company is usually happy to settle in exchange for a properly paid license, and an open source hacker instead is happy to settle in exchange for complying with the license. You're always free to take it to court and pay the damages from infringement, but you're not going to end up with a valid license in either case, so you'll have to stop distributing the software. The actual difference, probably, is that you're a (moral) competitor of the open source hacker, and if you're not a competitor of the proprietary company, they have no interest in undermining the secrecy of your code or causing you to go out of business, even if the could potentially force that if they went to court. They're likely to consider "pay us a percentage of revenues" as a win condition. Also, lawyers are not like Pokemon. You cannot beat the opposing team's lawyers by having more stronger lawyers. You can certainly lose by having bad lawyers, but you can only be guaranteed to win by being in the right.
- james_s_tayler 8y ago
  You can't actually be guaranteed to win by being in the right. You can be in the right and lose.
  - nordsieck 8y ago
    >> Also, lawyers are not like Pokemon. You cannot beat the opposing team's lawyers by having more stronger lawyers. You can certainly lose by having bad lawyers, but you can only be guaranteed to win by being in the right. > You can't actually be guaranteed to win by being in the right. You can be in the right and lose. What he's obviously saying is that there is a seriously decreasing marginal benefit to more expensive (and presumably competent) lawyers. It's better to have competent lawyers and be right than have amazing lawyers and be wrong. Obviously there are shades of grey, nuisance lawsuits are a thing, etc.
    - james_s_tayler 8y ago
michaelmrose 8y ago
You actually can't magically lose your rights to code you created. You could rewrite your code so it doesn't depend on gpl code if you found you had included code you had no right to.
admax88q 8y ago
I mean if you're planning to violate the license then does it really matter what the license is? Your company sounds shady if you evaluate software icenses based upon how much it will hurt when you violate them.
- detaro 8y ago
  There's a difference between "planning to violate the license" and worrying about what happens if you do because someone didn't pay attention.

kevin_thibedeau 8y ago

The only claimants to your source code are those to whom you've distributed binaries built from GPL sources. Anyone else can pound sand.

ktjfi 8y ago
If you were the author of a GPL piece of code whose licence was violated, and the EFF came to you and said "we'll pay for the lawyers and in exchange we get publicity", most people would say yes.
hisham_hm 8y ago
not the case for AGPL: then it's everyone who has access to your online service built with the code.
- j16sdiz 8y ago
  I don't think it works like that. This is a copyright license at its heart. It is a contract between the copyright-owner and the service owner. The end user is just 3rd party.
  - TeMPOraL 8y ago
    Wait, isn't the whole point of AGPL that the "user" entitled to the source code is now the service user, i.e. potentially everyone?
lvh 8y ago
That's true, but GGP comment mentioned AGPL presumably for a reason :)

geofft 8y ago

(Usually not the EFF; more likely Software Freedom Conservancy or someone. EFF is more digital rights and privacy stuff, not copyright.) A copyright holder can't get anything more from you by using the GPL. Infringement is infringement. The difference is that a company is usually happy to settle in exchange for a properly paid license, and an open source hacker instead is happy to settle in exchange for complying with the license. You're always free to take it to court and pay the damages from infringement, but you're not going to end up with a valid license in either case, so you'll have to stop distributing the software. The actual difference, probably, is that you're a (moral) competitor of the open source hacker, and if you're not a competitor of the proprietary company, they have no interest in undermining the secrecy of your code or causing you to go out of business, even if the could potentially force that if they went to court. They're likely to consider "pay us a percentage of revenues" as a win condition. Also, lawyers are not like Pokemon. You cannot beat the opposing team's lawyers by having more stronger lawyers. You can certainly lose by having bad lawyers, but you can only be guaranteed to win by being in the right.

james_s_tayler 8y ago
You can't actually be guaranteed to win by being in the right. You can be in the right and lose.
- nordsieck 8y ago
  >> Also, lawyers are not like Pokemon. You cannot beat the opposing team's lawyers by having more stronger lawyers. You can certainly lose by having bad lawyers, but you can only be guaranteed to win by being in the right. > You can't actually be guaranteed to win by being in the right. You can be in the right and lose. What he's obviously saying is that there is a seriously decreasing marginal benefit to more expensive (and presumably competent) lawyers. It's better to have competent lawyers and be right than have amazing lawyers and be wrong. Obviously there are shades of grey, nuisance lawsuits are a thing, etc.
  - james_s_tayler 8y ago

michaelmrose 8y ago

You actually can't magically lose your rights to code you created. You could rewrite your code so it doesn't depend on gpl code if you found you had included code you had no right to.

admax88q 8y ago

I mean if you're planning to violate the license then does it really matter what the license is? Your company sounds shady if you evaluate software icenses based upon how much it will hurt when you violate them.

detaro 8y ago
There's a difference between "planning to violate the license" and worrying about what happens if you do because someone didn't pay attention.