3 ms·

> Actually, it gets worse. Here's what the GPLv2 says about termination: > So if you violate the licence, it is terminated. That's it. Given that “you” may ref

> Actually, it gets worse. Here's what the GPLv2 says about termination: > So if you violate the licence, it is terminated. That's it. Given that “you” may refer to a corporation, this creates the following disturbing possibility: This is called the GPL death penalty, has actually happen in the past even before the article was written. It is yet another thing fixed by the oft-maligned GPLv3. Samba switched to GPLv3 because of it. https://ftp.samba.org/pub/samba/slides/linuxcollab-why-samba-went-gplv3.pdf https://ftp.samba.org/pub/samba/slides/linuxcollab-why-samba...

phendrenad2 5y ago
Now I'm curious. Who or what company was hit by the GPL "death penalty"?
- lolinder 5y ago
  Last year Stockfish attempted to enforce the GPLv3 version of the clause against ChessBase. I'm not sure how it has turned out so far. https://stockfishchess.org/blog/2021/our-lawsuit-against-chessbase/ https://stockfishchess.org/blog/2021/our-lawsuit-against-che... Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27896386 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27896386
- AshamedCaptain 5y ago
  The slides I attached are from a talk which mentioned one example. I remember seeing some version of this talk at some FOSDEM, likely https://archive.fosdem.org/2015/schedule/event/samba/ https://archive.fosdem.org/2015/schedule/event/samba/
hda111 5y ago
GPLv3 isn’t a useful license because it makes the use of software in automotive devices effectively impossible. And I think this is a security issue as well because the vendors still rely on very old GPLv2 versions of software and can’t update even if they wanted to.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- AshamedCaptain 5y ago
  > it makes the use of software in automotive devices effectively impossible. No, it doesn't, any more than repair laws do.
goodpoint 5y ago
> death penalty Can we slow down with the FUD please? GPLv3 is extremely lenient with license violations and GPLv2 is not. Yet, calling it "death penalty" is absurd. Millions of contracts have clauses for immediate termination, and often with less clear reasons than copyright violation. Plenty of free services like HN can close an account at any time and nobody calls it "death penalty". Do we see thousands of companies suddenly losing millions because of a GPLv2 breach? Nope.
- AshamedCaptain 5y ago
  You know that the terminology comes from one of the drafters of the GPLv3, right ?
  - goodpoint 5y ago
    Yes. I know Jeremy Allison and I watched the presentation of his slides. But here the term is being used in a completely different framing: FUD.
    - AshamedCaptain 5y ago
      What? I am literally using the term to describe the exact same point. What is different in the framing ?

phendrenad2 5y ago

Now I'm curious. Who or what company was hit by the GPL "death penalty"?

lolinder 5y ago
Last year Stockfish attempted to enforce the GPLv3 version of the clause against ChessBase. I'm not sure how it has turned out so far. https://stockfishchess.org/blog/2021/our-lawsuit-against-chessbase/ https://stockfishchess.org/blog/2021/our-lawsuit-against-che... Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27896386 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27896386
AshamedCaptain 5y ago
The slides I attached are from a talk which mentioned one example. I remember seeing some version of this talk at some FOSDEM, likely https://archive.fosdem.org/2015/schedule/event/samba/ https://archive.fosdem.org/2015/schedule/event/samba/

hda111 5y ago

GPLv3 isn’t a useful license because it makes the use of software in automotive devices effectively impossible. And I think this is a security issue as well because the vendors still rely on very old GPLv2 versions of software and can’t update even if they wanted to.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
AshamedCaptain 5y ago
> it makes the use of software in automotive devices effectively impossible. No, it doesn't, any more than repair laws do.

goodpoint 5y ago

> death penalty Can we slow down with the FUD please? GPLv3 is extremely lenient with license violations and GPLv2 is not. Yet, calling it "death penalty" is absurd. Millions of contracts have clauses for immediate termination, and often with less clear reasons than copyright violation. Plenty of free services like HN can close an account at any time and nobody calls it "death penalty". Do we see thousands of companies suddenly losing millions because of a GPLv2 breach? Nope.

AshamedCaptain 5y ago
You know that the terminology comes from one of the drafters of the GPLv3, right ?
- goodpoint 5y ago
  Yes. I know Jeremy Allison and I watched the presentation of his slides. But here the term is being used in a completely different framing: FUD.
  - AshamedCaptain 5y ago
    What? I am literally using the term to describe the exact same point. What is different in the framing ?