4 ms·

I would assume many GPL-licensed applications are GPL non-compliant. From a user's perspective, what are the most relevant problems when this is the case? (Excl

by timkam 6y ago

I would assume many GPL-licensed applications are GPL non-compliant. From a user's perspective, what are the most relevant problems when this is the case? (Excluding problems of philosophical nature that only free software geeks care about. No intention to be disrespectful; but the more practical the problems, the more likely it is that ordinary users can relate to them.)

toyg 6y ago
Without source code, you cannot trust what the app does. This is particularly bad for an app that will supposedly track your every move. Also, non-compliance with a copyright license effectively means “stealing”. So the government is effectively buying stolen goods from Amazon and Boston Group.
- mcqueenjordan 6y ago
  > Also, non-compliance with a copyright license effectively means “stealing”. So the government is effectively buying stolen goods from Amazon and Boston Group. Do you have a good source for that? (No, a random tweet isn't a good source.)
  - toyg 6y ago
    Source for what? It’s in TFA...?
cycloptic 6y ago
The requirement of the GPL is that the user must be able to get the source code if they ask for it, potentially for a small fee to cover the cost of distribution. Contrary to what the document seems to imply, it doesn't mean the source needs to be up on Github. But that is a common method of complying. The document is not really clear if anyone asked them or not or what their response was. I'm not sure what you mean by philosophical vs practical. The problem is past that point and is really is not related to either of those, it's a legal problem: a user wants the source code, the license says they're entitled to receive it, but the distributor is violating the license by refusing to provide it to the user. Or at least that was my read anyway.
zelphirkalt 6y ago
These "problems of philosophical nature that only free software geeks care about" however, tend to quickly have very practical consequences, that many people care about, though. Only that many do not realize, that their problems would not have happened, if they had used free software. Most people are not even aware what free software means or that it exists. So I would not mix the two issues of a problem being a real problem and people's lack of knowledge about the software licensing world or software in general. Just because people don't know what the actual root cause is, it does not mean, that the problem does not exist, or that the people will not care about consequences, that will affect them. I will also say,that without idealism of many great people creating free software and little pockets of free society, we would not be, where we are today. A very general statement, I know, but I have no doubt in my mind, that the idea of making knowledge freely available and making sure it stays that way does help advance society in many areas.
- timkam 6y ago
  It's hard to disagree with the statements you make in this comment, but this does not answer my question. To say "free software is important" is one thing; another thing is to say "if a GPL-licensed software includes a closed-source dependency, this is a news-breaking problem". Considering the deep dependency trees many applications have, I would assume incompatible licenses in an app or library, and yes--even closed source dependencies in GPL-licensed applications--is a problem that occurs rather frequently. I think there is a generic problem at the intersection of license management and dependency management. COVIDSafe is just an example of this, and given the prevalence of these issues, I think it is in itself not particularly newsworthy.
justinclift 6y ago
Personally, if I use an application and it doesn't quite work properly (for me), I'll submit fixes to the author. Depending on time/effort required of course. :) If it turns out a GPL app doesn't have the source available, then it's kind of a moot point. No fix can be made, and I probably wouldn't keep it installed either. ;)

by timkam 6y ago

toyg 6y ago

Without source code, you cannot trust what the app does. This is particularly bad for an app that will supposedly track your every move. Also, non-compliance with a copyright license effectively means “stealing”. So the government is effectively buying stolen goods from Amazon and Boston Group.

mcqueenjordan 6y ago
> Also, non-compliance with a copyright license effectively means “stealing”. So the government is effectively buying stolen goods from Amazon and Boston Group. Do you have a good source for that? (No, a random tweet isn't a good source.)
- toyg 6y ago
  Source for what? It’s in TFA...?

cycloptic 6y ago

The requirement of the GPL is that the user must be able to get the source code if they ask for it, potentially for a small fee to cover the cost of distribution. Contrary to what the document seems to imply, it doesn't mean the source needs to be up on Github. But that is a common method of complying. The document is not really clear if anyone asked them or not or what their response was. I'm not sure what you mean by philosophical vs practical. The problem is past that point and is really is not related to either of those, it's a legal problem: a user wants the source code, the license says they're entitled to receive it, but the distributor is violating the license by refusing to provide it to the user. Or at least that was my read anyway.

zelphirkalt 6y ago

These "problems of philosophical nature that only free software geeks care about" however, tend to quickly have very practical consequences, that many people care about, though. Only that many do not realize, that their problems would not have happened, if they had used free software. Most people are not even aware what free software means or that it exists. So I would not mix the two issues of a problem being a real problem and people's lack of knowledge about the software licensing world or software in general. Just because people don't know what the actual root cause is, it does not mean, that the problem does not exist, or that the people will not care about consequences, that will affect them. I will also say,that without idealism of many great people creating free software and little pockets of free society, we would not be, where we are today. A very general statement, I know, but I have no doubt in my mind, that the idea of making knowledge freely available and making sure it stays that way does help advance society in many areas.

timkam 6y ago
It's hard to disagree with the statements you make in this comment, but this does not answer my question. To say "free software is important" is one thing; another thing is to say "if a GPL-licensed software includes a closed-source dependency, this is a news-breaking problem". Considering the deep dependency trees many applications have, I would assume incompatible licenses in an app or library, and yes--even closed source dependencies in GPL-licensed applications--is a problem that occurs rather frequently. I think there is a generic problem at the intersection of license management and dependency management. COVIDSafe is just an example of this, and given the prevalence of these issues, I think it is in itself not particularly newsworthy.

justinclift 6y ago

Personally, if I use an application and it doesn't quite work properly (for me), I'll submit fixes to the author. Depending on time/effort required of course. :) If it turns out a GPL app doesn't have the source available, then it's kind of a moot point. No fix can be made, and I probably wouldn't keep it installed either. ;)