5 ms·

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 b

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.
    - kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
      The FSF FAQ explicitly states that internal use within a corporation does not count as distribution. It's one legal entity and can't violate copyleft on its own. A gray area would be a subsidiary or joint venture sharing with a parent.
      - ravel-bar-foo 4y ago
        That's really interesting, because if a corporation bought a physical book, scanned it, and distributed it internally that would be a clear violation of copyright law.
        kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
        GPL is copyleft (copies authorized by default) until you violate the terms. Then normal copyright law applies and it's the same as an unauthorized book copy.
      - autoexec 4y ago
        > The FSF FAQ explicitly states that internal use within a corporation does not count as distribution. It's probably a good thing on balance since it's one less barrier to companies using code under the license, but considering companies and their assets (including their internal tools) can be bought and sold, I'd personally consider that distribution enough.
    - contravariant 4y ago
      Your reasoning suggests the terms of the copyright license do apply when used as an internal tool (you'd be free to keep the code hidden otherwise) in which case preventing anyone from publishing any work derived from code under a copyleft license seems impossible. At the very least the GPL doesn't seem to allow you to create a derived work and require people to keep it secret even if it's just internal to the office (though I guess they could keep it secret willingly, I just see no way to legally compel them). This seems different from something that's purely personal use. I don't think it makes much sense to force a program to show a notice its GPL licensed if you're the only one using it for instance. In fact that seems to run counter to the intent of free software. It's possible that legal systems treat this situation differently, but I think it makes far more sense if you don't need an additional license to use stuff that's already published by the copyright holder until what you're doing starts to go beyond just personal use.
- ramshorns 4y ago
  Of course; those are freedoms 0 and 1 guaranteed by the license. It seems like "use" sometimes means "include in a downstream software package and redistribute modified versions of".
  - fluoridation 4y ago
    My point is that just having the GPL doesn't guarantee that modifications will be contributed back or published, even without violating the license.
    - pabs3 4y ago
      Right, GPL only requires contributing forward, to the downstream users. It is only through creating a culture of working upstream and or reaching out to downstream redistributors that a project gets any contributions back, including financial contributions.
- goodpoint 4y ago
  Yes, and that's good. Internal use is different from redistribution. The important point is to prevent freeloaders from taking credit from your work [and sometime even competing against you].
snambi 4y ago
True. As a original developer of code, it protects the original author and the real user. However the middlemen (companies who make money using others code) may not like this.

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.
  - kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
    The FSF FAQ explicitly states that internal use within a corporation does not count as distribution. It's one legal entity and can't violate copyleft on its own. A gray area would be a subsidiary or joint venture sharing with a parent.
    - ravel-bar-foo 4y ago
      That's really interesting, because if a corporation bought a physical book, scanned it, and distributed it internally that would be a clear violation of copyright law.
      - kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
        GPL is copyleft (copies authorized by default) until you violate the terms. Then normal copyright law applies and it's the same as an unauthorized book copy.
    - autoexec 4y ago
      > The FSF FAQ explicitly states that internal use within a corporation does not count as distribution. It's probably a good thing on balance since it's one less barrier to companies using code under the license, but considering companies and their assets (including their internal tools) can be bought and sold, I'd personally consider that distribution enough.
  - contravariant 4y ago
    Your reasoning suggests the terms of the copyright license do apply when used as an internal tool (you'd be free to keep the code hidden otherwise) in which case preventing anyone from publishing any work derived from code under a copyleft license seems impossible. At the very least the GPL doesn't seem to allow you to create a derived work and require people to keep it secret even if it's just internal to the office (though I guess they could keep it secret willingly, I just see no way to legally compel them). This seems different from something that's purely personal use. I don't think it makes much sense to force a program to show a notice its GPL licensed if you're the only one using it for instance. In fact that seems to run counter to the intent of free software. It's possible that legal systems treat this situation differently, but I think it makes far more sense if you don't need an additional license to use stuff that's already published by the copyright holder until what you're doing starts to go beyond just personal use.
ramshorns 4y ago
Of course; those are freedoms 0 and 1 guaranteed by the license. It seems like "use" sometimes means "include in a downstream software package and redistribute modified versions of".
- fluoridation 4y ago
  My point is that just having the GPL doesn't guarantee that modifications will be contributed back or published, even without violating the license.
  - pabs3 4y ago
    Right, GPL only requires contributing forward, to the downstream users. It is only through creating a culture of working upstream and or reaching out to downstream redistributors that a project gets any contributions back, including financial contributions.
goodpoint 4y ago
Yes, and that's good. Internal use is different from redistribution. The important point is to prevent freeloaders from taking credit from your work [and sometime even competing against you].

snambi 4y ago

True. As a original developer of code, it protects the original author and the real user. However the middlemen (companies who make money using others code) may not like this.