9 ms·

Wow - to say this is a major major result in an understatement. This is going to turn GPL litigation on its head, and allow more activist type folks to pursue c

Wow - to say this is a major major result in an understatement. This is going to turn GPL litigation on its head, and allow more activist type folks to pursue cases aggressively. On the developer side I can see a move away from GPL - as adding third parties into this is going to be pretty unappealing for some developers. I think historically distribution of source code was seen as a condition of the copyright license (which meant copyright holders enforced), not as a separate contract right available to third parties (which would mean users and other can go after a variety of claims).

goodpoint 4y ago
> as adding third parties into this is going to be pretty unappealing for some developers On the contrary: the GPL is meant to PROTECT developers from patent trolls and freeloaders who what to turn FOSS into unpaid labor. It also protect users, and all developers are also users.
- pabs3 4y ago
  Nothing in the GPL does anything about freeloading; I'm using lots of GPL projects without contributing back funding, bug reports or patches, for eg glibc, GCC and so on. The only thing the GPL does is give the same access copyright holders have to software to downstream users.
  - Wowfunhappy 4y ago
    > The only thing the GPL does is give the same access copyright holders have to software to downstream users. I think that's what GP meant by preventing freeloading. Anything you do with the source code to GPL software needs to itself be distributed freely. Ie, a company can't freeload off of your work to build and then sell a proprietary project.
    - pabs3 4y ago
      Right, but they can freeload off your work and sell a GPL project (or even sell just setting up the project), distributing source to users, but those users not publishing or doing anything with the code and you not getting modifications back nor any kind of financial support.
  - goodpoint 4y ago
    No. I wrote "freeloaders who what to turn FOSS into unpaid labor". Simply using or modifying for internal use is OK. We cross the line into unpaid labor when I release an application or a game, and somebody changes the name, maybe makes minor improvements, then sells it and takes all the money, takes all the credit, and even competes against my own software.
    - pabs3 4y ago
      That sounds like a description of what literally every Linux distro does. Take your code, potentially make a (minor) fork of it, sells access to it, sells support for it, maybe sells hosting for it (Amazon), takes all the money, maybe gives back patches or maybe not and competes with your own builds of the software. I think that what you want (no competition from forks or downstream redistributors) would not comply with the Open Source Definition (or DFSG) nor the Free Software Definition. https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
riskable 4y ago
On the developer side I see the opposite: End users that are complaining can now deal with problem themselves without having to pester (or even find) the developer. Anything that amounts to less pestering of developers is (probably) a good thing
- Rygian 4y ago
  I'm unsure of how the burden of proof would work if the developer is not involved. The end user may have a hard time even guessing whether a piece of GPL software is embedded in the defendant's software.
  - servilio 4y ago
    Someone with enough knowledge to provide the proof would still need to be involved, but it doesn't have to be the original developer(s).
e3bc54b2 4y ago
On the contrary, as a developer, this makes GPL even more appealing to me. I don't have time, money or energy to sue someone for using my code and not giving back. But if downstream users can, and the math changes.
- tempnow987 4y ago
  In the old model in that case you could assign or work with any of the litigation groups already doing the work needed to allow them to sue on your behalf. Downstream users can also of course sue you if you work on a project with a few other people under the GPL even if they didn't write any code or contribute.
- fluoridation 4y ago
  Someone could "use your code and not give back" while staying perfectly within the limits of the GPL, though. For example, they could use and modify your software in an internal package.
  - contravariant 4y ago
    This is something that's always been slightly unclear to me. I think you should be able to do whatever with any copyrighted code that's been published (by someone who has the right to do so) for your own personal use, regardless of license. Clearly publishing this copyrighted is not possible without some kind of license. However where 'personal use' ends and 'publishing copyrighted code' begins is not entirely clear to me. Does an internal tool in a company still count?
    - fluoridation 4y ago
      > Does an internal tool in a company still count? I would think so, yes. If I take a piece of information and do something to it inside my house, that's my business. If I show it to my friend, it's between him and me. If it let my coworkers see it so that they can only see it within the office, it's between them and me. And so on. The only issue would arise if an employee asked to see the source of such an internal tool and was denied.
heavyset_go 4y ago
This just makes me more confident in choosing GPL licenses for my projects in order to ensure user freedom.
- dcow 4y ago
  Exactly. The choice of GPL is an explicit choice to protect end user freedom over reducing intermediate developer & corporation hassle. If you want to ensure end-user freedom, BSD, MIT, Apache style permissive licenses don't cut it. If you want to become a developer celebrity and have your open source project used in projects everywhere, or if you are a company and you want to hook other devs on your freemium open core product, then those licenses are for you. The decision about whether to use the GPL or not is far more nuanced and there is no one-size-fits-all license out there. If there was I suspect we'd all use it... Interestingly in this case, this ruling also reduces intermediate developer hassle for devs who are already used to working with GPL code. So that's a nice win (=
  - tempnow987 4y ago
    Agreed. Will be interesting to see where development / contributions by various players go in the future.
  - goodpoint 4y ago
    > protect end user freedom over reducing intermediate developer & corporation hassle Actually it also reduces intermediate developer hassle: it's better if I don't have to rely on closed source firmware, firmware updaters, drivers, SDKs, proprietary tools. It create openness in the whole software stack.
- tempnow987 4y ago
  Then this will be a good result. You of course may be sued yourself if you have a project using GPL'ed code that doesn't comply with the the current view of GPL (ie, release of encryption keys) or if you infringe your own GPL copyright in some proprietary project (ie, GPL code where user was promised access is in something that you don't want available broadly). This is all good for users for sure for things like open core projects and projects that used to be open but moved away etc

goodpoint 4y ago

> as adding third parties into this is going to be pretty unappealing for some developers On the contrary: the GPL is meant to PROTECT developers from patent trolls and freeloaders who what to turn FOSS into unpaid labor. It also protect users, and all developers are also users.

pabs3 4y ago
Nothing in the GPL does anything about freeloading; I'm using lots of GPL projects without contributing back funding, bug reports or patches, for eg glibc, GCC and so on. The only thing the GPL does is give the same access copyright holders have to software to downstream users.
- Wowfunhappy 4y ago
  > The only thing the GPL does is give the same access copyright holders have to software to downstream users. I think that's what GP meant by preventing freeloading. Anything you do with the source code to GPL software needs to itself be distributed freely. Ie, a company can't freeload off of your work to build and then sell a proprietary project.
  - pabs3 4y ago
    Right, but they can freeload off your work and sell a GPL project (or even sell just setting up the project), distributing source to users, but those users not publishing or doing anything with the code and you not getting modifications back nor any kind of financial support.
- goodpoint 4y ago
  No. I wrote "freeloaders who what to turn FOSS into unpaid labor". Simply using or modifying for internal use is OK. We cross the line into unpaid labor when I release an application or a game, and somebody changes the name, maybe makes minor improvements, then sells it and takes all the money, takes all the credit, and even competes against my own software.
  - pabs3 4y ago
    That sounds like a description of what literally every Linux distro does. Take your code, potentially make a (minor) fork of it, sells access to it, sells support for it, maybe sells hosting for it (Amazon), takes all the money, maybe gives back patches or maybe not and competes with your own builds of the software. I think that what you want (no competition from forks or downstream redistributors) would not comply with the Open Source Definition (or DFSG) nor the Free Software Definition. https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

riskable 4y ago

On the developer side I see the opposite: End users that are complaining can now deal with problem themselves without having to pester (or even find) the developer. Anything that amounts to less pestering of developers is (probably) a good thing

Rygian 4y ago
I'm unsure of how the burden of proof would work if the developer is not involved. The end user may have a hard time even guessing whether a piece of GPL software is embedded in the defendant's software.
- servilio 4y ago
  Someone with enough knowledge to provide the proof would still need to be involved, but it doesn't have to be the original developer(s).

e3bc54b2 4y ago

On the contrary, as a developer, this makes GPL even more appealing to me. I don't have time, money or energy to sue someone for using my code and not giving back. But if downstream users can, and the math changes.

tempnow987 4y ago
In the old model in that case you could assign or work with any of the litigation groups already doing the work needed to allow them to sue on your behalf. Downstream users can also of course sue you if you work on a project with a few other people under the GPL even if they didn't write any code or contribute.
fluoridation 4y ago
Someone could "use your code and not give back" while staying perfectly within the limits of the GPL, though. For example, they could use and modify your software in an internal package.
- contravariant 4y ago
  This is something that's always been slightly unclear to me. I think you should be able to do whatever with any copyrighted code that's been published (by someone who has the right to do so) for your own personal use, regardless of license. Clearly publishing this copyrighted is not possible without some kind of license. However where 'personal use' ends and 'publishing copyrighted code' begins is not entirely clear to me. Does an internal tool in a company still count?
  - fluoridation 4y ago
    > Does an internal tool in a company still count? I would think so, yes. If I take a piece of information and do something to it inside my house, that's my business. If I show it to my friend, it's between him and me. If it let my coworkers see it so that they can only see it within the office, it's between them and me. And so on. The only issue would arise if an employee asked to see the source of such an internal tool and was denied.

heavyset_go 4y ago

This just makes me more confident in choosing GPL licenses for my projects in order to ensure user freedom.

dcow 4y ago
Exactly. The choice of GPL is an explicit choice to protect end user freedom over reducing intermediate developer & corporation hassle. If you want to ensure end-user freedom, BSD, MIT, Apache style permissive licenses don't cut it. If you want to become a developer celebrity and have your open source project used in projects everywhere, or if you are a company and you want to hook other devs on your freemium open core product, then those licenses are for you. The decision about whether to use the GPL or not is far more nuanced and there is no one-size-fits-all license out there. If there was I suspect we'd all use it... Interestingly in this case, this ruling also reduces intermediate developer hassle for devs who are already used to working with GPL code. So that's a nice win (=
- tempnow987 4y ago
  Agreed. Will be interesting to see where development / contributions by various players go in the future.
- goodpoint 4y ago
  > protect end user freedom over reducing intermediate developer & corporation hassle Actually it also reduces intermediate developer hassle: it's better if I don't have to rely on closed source firmware, firmware updaters, drivers, SDKs, proprietary tools. It create openness in the whole software stack.
tempnow987 4y ago
Then this will be a good result. You of course may be sued yourself if you have a project using GPL'ed code that doesn't comply with the the current view of GPL (ie, release of encryption keys) or if you infringe your own GPL copyright in some proprietary project (ie, GPL code where user was promised access is in something that you don't want available broadly). This is all good for users for sure for things like open core projects and projects that used to be open but moved away etc