7 ms·

They know what it means. It means a copyright holder of the Linux kernel would have to sue them in China. Good luck with that.

davidgerard 6y ago
If the software is embedded, they can be sued elsewhere. Like that time BusyBox sued over the GPL and won ... a pile of TVs! http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100803132055210 http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100803132055210
ballenf 6y ago
Could users of the product also be sued by a Linux contributor? If you can’t go after them, going after their customers would kill their business. But this approach seems too cute to be feasible even on the long shot that the GPL would allow it.
- slim 6y ago
  no, since they don't have access to source, they can't modify it and gpl does not apply to them
  - lopmotr 6y ago
    It's rather that they're not distributing it (either source or binary) so the GPL doesn't apply to them. Not having access to the source doesn't exempt you from the GPL.
    - elchupanebre 6y ago
      But they are getting an unlicensed product. IMNAL, but if they are made aware of the fact and continue to use the product, wouldn't it be willful misconduct?
  - Dylan16807 6y ago
    If the GPL completely doesn't apply then you don't have a license to use the program.
    - iso947 6y ago
      You don’t have a license to copy the program, the gpl does not grant you a license to use the program as you do not need a license to use a program. If you don’t agree to The gpl normal copyright law applies and you can’t copy the program outside of fair use in your jurisdiction
      - Dylan16807 6y ago
        If I install a pirate copy of a program on your computer, can you use it without a license?
        iso947 6y ago
        What law would I be breaking in what jurisdiction? I’m not familiar with Somali copyright law, and that’s the main source of pirated, although I did read an increasing number in Nigeria too.
- belorn 6y ago
  In theory yes. In the early days of internet pirate sites there existed an argument that it was only the people distributing that could get sued for infringement. Similar when streaming happened it was argued that no copy was downloaded, and the users clearly did no distributing. With cable decoders (in countries without anti-drm) it was similar argued that no distribution occurred by the users or the producers of the cards. Since then a lot of court cases has happened and as far as I know neither of those arguments have held up. There is usually a law or two that get digged up in order to have something to charge people with, and law makers has been quite diligent in address those kind of arguments in new laws. But there is one major caviat. Those cases has all been by large media owners with both large teams of lawyers and "close" relationships with the legal and political system. A lone developer will have a much more difficult time.
newacct583 6y ago
You can sue them anywhere the devices are available. Obviously the remedy is going to have to be within the jurisdiction of the particular court, but you could block imports or receive damages in any nation to which they ship.
arp242 6y ago
Why solve matters with lawyers if you don't need to? If there's a failure of understanding, possibly due to language issues as the previous commenter suggested, then trying to establish a dialogue and trying to explain the matter to them would be a far easier (and cheaper!) option for everyone, regardless of locality. It doesn't help that the GPL is not an easy document to read by the way :-/
- subaru_shoe 6y ago
  Are you really no naive that you think this is a lack of understanding?
  - arp242 6y ago
    Why would it be impossible? The only time I ever happened to stumble upon a GPL violation (more than 10 years ago) I explained it and they said "oops, sorry, we'll fix that". Worth a try, no? I don't think it's naïve. The cost of explaining is minimal and you lose very little by trying. Even if the odds of success are low, it's still makes sense to try as the cost of a lawsuit is so much higher both in time and money. It's also just basic common courtesy IMO to assume someone made an honest mistake even when you suspect they didn't (because sometimes your suspicions are incorrect).

davidgerard 6y ago

If the software is embedded, they can be sued elsewhere. Like that time BusyBox sued over the GPL and won ... a pile of TVs! http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100803132055210 http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100803132055210

ballenf 6y ago

Could users of the product also be sued by a Linux contributor? If you can’t go after them, going after their customers would kill their business. But this approach seems too cute to be feasible even on the long shot that the GPL would allow it.

slim 6y ago
no, since they don't have access to source, they can't modify it and gpl does not apply to them
- lopmotr 6y ago
  It's rather that they're not distributing it (either source or binary) so the GPL doesn't apply to them. Not having access to the source doesn't exempt you from the GPL.
  - elchupanebre 6y ago
    But they are getting an unlicensed product. IMNAL, but if they are made aware of the fact and continue to use the product, wouldn't it be willful misconduct?
- Dylan16807 6y ago
  If the GPL completely doesn't apply then you don't have a license to use the program.
  - iso947 6y ago
    You don’t have a license to copy the program, the gpl does not grant you a license to use the program as you do not need a license to use a program. If you don’t agree to The gpl normal copyright law applies and you can’t copy the program outside of fair use in your jurisdiction
    - Dylan16807 6y ago
      If I install a pirate copy of a program on your computer, can you use it without a license?
      - iso947 6y ago
        What law would I be breaking in what jurisdiction? I’m not familiar with Somali copyright law, and that’s the main source of pirated, although I did read an increasing number in Nigeria too.
belorn 6y ago
In theory yes. In the early days of internet pirate sites there existed an argument that it was only the people distributing that could get sued for infringement. Similar when streaming happened it was argued that no copy was downloaded, and the users clearly did no distributing. With cable decoders (in countries without anti-drm) it was similar argued that no distribution occurred by the users or the producers of the cards. Since then a lot of court cases has happened and as far as I know neither of those arguments have held up. There is usually a law or two that get digged up in order to have something to charge people with, and law makers has been quite diligent in address those kind of arguments in new laws. But there is one major caviat. Those cases has all been by large media owners with both large teams of lawyers and "close" relationships with the legal and political system. A lone developer will have a much more difficult time.

newacct583 6y ago

You can sue them anywhere the devices are available. Obviously the remedy is going to have to be within the jurisdiction of the particular court, but you could block imports or receive damages in any nation to which they ship.

arp242 6y ago

Why solve matters with lawyers if you don't need to? If there's a failure of understanding, possibly due to language issues as the previous commenter suggested, then trying to establish a dialogue and trying to explain the matter to them would be a far easier (and cheaper!) option for everyone, regardless of locality. It doesn't help that the GPL is not an easy document to read by the way :-/

subaru_shoe 6y ago
Are you really no naive that you think this is a lack of understanding?
- arp242 6y ago
  Why would it be impossible? The only time I ever happened to stumble upon a GPL violation (more than 10 years ago) I explained it and they said "oops, sorry, we'll fix that". Worth a try, no? I don't think it's naïve. The cost of explaining is minimal and you lose very little by trying. Even if the odds of success are low, it's still makes sense to try as the cost of a lawsuit is so much higher both in time and money. It's also just basic common courtesy IMO to assume someone made an honest mistake even when you suspect they didn't (because sometimes your suspicions are incorrect).