3 ms·
I don't see how anybody could read the GPL FAQ (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html) and not come away confused. I
by thaumaturgy 16y ago
I don't see how anybody could read the GPL FAQ (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html) and not come away confused. It's awkward as hell. And then there's this part:
> I'd like to incorporate GPL-covered software in my proprietary system. Can I do this?
> You cannot incorporate GPL-covered software in a proprietary system.
...followed by a series of ifs-and-buts that include completely vague terms like "at arms length".
MacOS X is a proprietary system. It includes support for Windows file sharing. Assuming that Samba was used for this, does this mean that MacOS was not incorporating Samba? Or does it mean that Apple was in violation? Or does it mean that somehow Apple was meeting one of the vague requirements for separation between Samba and MacOS?
(I'm not raising this as a question of differences between GPL v2 and GPL v3.)
Given the case histories involving the GPL so far, I could see Apple's legal team advising Apple to put as much distance between them and the GPL as possible. Non-compliance due to one gray area or another could force Apple to release tons of proprietary source code.
I think that shrugging this situation off with "well, that's their decision" is completely disingenuous. Yes, it's their decision to make, but they will most certainly decide in a particular way as a direct result of the situation they're looking at.
- kevinpet 16y ago<i>Non-compliance due to one gray area or another could force Apple to release tons of proprietary source code.</i> No, it cannot. Anyone who repeats this FUD is revealing he has no understanding of the issues. The GPL may not be exceedingly clear, but this is entirely an issue of copyright law. Maybe they will be forced to stop distributing something until they replace a component, and maybe they could be forced to pay damages, but there is no mechanism that the GPL could force them to release anything they didn't want to.
- thaumaturgy 16y agohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BusyBox#GPL_lawsuits http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BusyBox#GPL_lawsuits > The case was settled with release of the Monsoon version of the source and payment of an undisclosed amount of money... > The Xterasys case [ed: separate case] was settled on December 17 for release of source code used and an undisclosed payment. (I'm not including cases that were settled with a stipulation of "active compliance".) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL#The_GPL_in_court http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL#The_GPL_in_court > Cisco settled the case six months later agreeing ... to make source code of FSF programs freely available on its website. Granted, that last one doesn't sound all that bad. Given that the GPL does compel the release of source code for derivative works, and given that one of the FSF's tactics in lawsuit settlements is to ask for the release of source code, let's not go misapplying the FUD label, OK? edit: I don't mean that to sound snarky. Rather, I'd like to see less "Bah, that's just FUD", and more explanation and clarity when responding to people's concerns about the GPL.
- tzs 16y agoThose companies settled because they wanted to continue distributing their products as is. Hence, they released source in order to be allowed to do that. They could have instead replaced the GPL code with non-GPL code, possibly paid some damages, and been done with the matter with their source remaining secret.
- caf 16y agoSettlements are agreements. No-one was forced to release source code, which is the language you used. It was their choice - they could have held out if they had wanted to. You can't force a GPL violator to release source. All you can do is offer them a deal where they release the source in exchange for less/no monetary damages.