3 ms·

It doesn't take any significant amount of money to comply with the GPL. Indeed not, but handing over your improvements to your competitors knowing not all of t

It doesn't take any significant amount of money to comply with the GPL. Indeed not, but handing over your improvements to your competitors knowing not all of them will do the same seems to me like a bad business decision. Those companies could comply, and Google would still make the same amount of money. It doesn't matter to Google if they comply or not comply, monetarily or otherwise. This is not necessarily the choice vendors make. They are choosing between complying, not complying and not using. If complying is not an option, then Google banning the non-compliance option by implementing the OP's suggestion (which it would effectively do, as far as I can tell) would encourage vendors to simply refrain from using Android, the only remaining option. It would not surprise me if Google intentionally refrained from banning the non-compliance option to help popularize Android. If that is true (which, it very well might not be), then the current situation, in which non-compliance is commonplace, is just a result of Google's early Android strategy. By now, though, maybe we've reached a stage in which it is more profitable to comply with the GPL than not using Android at all. If so, then Google could implement the OP's suggestion without much harm.

darklajid 15y ago
I might have problems understanding your post. Please help me correct my reading comprehension failure here: 1) 'Seems like a bad business decision' sounds like you think that's a decision to make in the first place. Basing your company on operating systems/database systems/tooling that you got from bittorrent might be a 'business decision' in the same way, if I understand you correctly? 2) "They are choosing between complying, not complying and not using." How are there three choices? It's either complying or not using. Everything else is not a business, it's a shady/illegal way to make money off other people's work. Again: This isn't a (real, legitimate) choice in the first place, so I don't see why this comes up at all.
- ordinary 15y ago
  'Seems like a bad business decision' sounds like you think that's a decision to make in the first place. Basing your company on operating systems/database systems/tooling that you got from bittorrent might be a 'business decision' in the same way, if I understand you correctly? Not complying with the license of the software you use is not a good business decision. I said otherwise in my previous post and that was incorrect. My bad. However, if you're operating in an environment in which you know that your compliance with said license will not be reciprocated by your competitors, then I can understand why one would be reluctant. How are there three choices? It's either complying or not using. Everything else is not a business, it's a shady/illegal way to make money off other people's work. Again: This isn't a (real, legitimate) choice in the first place, so I don't see why this comes up at all. It's clear these companies have no issue with not complying with the GPL. If they did, they would be in compliance right now. If your goal is popularizing a new operating system, and you know you're dealing with people who do not care about such trivial matters like licenses or laws, then not taking measures to enforce the license is good for business. That, while shady, and perhaps evil, is not illegal.

darklajid 15y ago

I might have problems understanding your post. Please help me correct my reading comprehension failure here: 1) 'Seems like a bad business decision' sounds like you think that's a decision to make in the first place. Basing your company on operating systems/database systems/tooling that you got from bittorrent might be a 'business decision' in the same way, if I understand you correctly? 2) "They are choosing between complying, not complying and not using." How are there three choices? It's either complying or not using. Everything else is not a business, it's a shady/illegal way to make money off other people's work. Again: This isn't a (real, legitimate) choice in the first place, so I don't see why this comes up at all.

ordinary 15y ago
'Seems like a bad business decision' sounds like you think that's a decision to make in the first place. Basing your company on operating systems/database systems/tooling that you got from bittorrent might be a 'business decision' in the same way, if I understand you correctly? Not complying with the license of the software you use is not a good business decision. I said otherwise in my previous post and that was incorrect. My bad. However, if you're operating in an environment in which you know that your compliance with said license will not be reciprocated by your competitors, then I can understand why one would be reluctant. How are there three choices? It's either complying or not using. Everything else is not a business, it's a shady/illegal way to make money off other people's work. Again: This isn't a (real, legitimate) choice in the first place, so I don't see why this comes up at all. It's clear these companies have no issue with not complying with the GPL. If they did, they would be in compliance right now. If your goal is popularizing a new operating system, and you know you're dealing with people who do not care about such trivial matters like licenses or laws, then not taking measures to enforce the license is good for business. That, while shady, and perhaps evil, is not illegal.