5 ms·

Non-compliance due to one gray area or another could force Apple to release tons of proprietary source code. No, it cannot. Anyone who repeats this FUD

Non-compliance due to one gray area or another could force Apple to release tons of proprietary source code. 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 ago
http://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 ago
  Those 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 ago
  Settlements 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.

thaumaturgy 16y ago

http://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 ago
Those 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 ago
Settlements 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.

<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

<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