5 ms·

The GPL has been enforced by the FSF / Eben Moglen repeatedly and even defended in court by other companies (1)(2). To quote Moglen: > Despite the FUD, as a c

The GPL has been enforced by the FSF / Eben Moglen repeatedly and even defended in court by other companies (1)(2). To quote Moglen: > Despite the FUD, as a copyright license the GPL is absolutely solid. That’s why I’ve been able to enforce it dozens of times over nearly ten years, without ever going to court. [...] http://moglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/lu-12.pdf http://moglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/lu-12.pdf PDF The claim however has to come from the copyright owner, not a third party that attempts vigilante-style justice like the disgruntled employee. The employee should signal the license breach to the original authors. ---- 1. https://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/02/27/gpl_enforcement_goes_to_court/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/02/27/gpl_enforcement_goe... 2. https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/news/first-us-lawsuit-to-test-gpl-open-source-licence https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/news/first-us-lawsuit-...

karmajunkie 7y ago
Exactly this. Francis would be deeply in the wrong in any court in the US (and, I presume, Canada) for unilaterally publishing their source code, even if required by the GPL. They can be forced to do so, but only by the courts. As for HR, they really should have handled this very differently. Ling should have been fired along with Lee for disclosing his veto to Lee, who then bragged about it. Francis should have been given the promotion he earned. If I were in their shoes now, I'd give him the severance package he wants unless he quits on his own—involutary termination of any sort should trigger the package.