5 ms·

Great to see companies getting exposed for these kinds of violations. However, their response of shooting the messenger tells me that they will not simply roll

Great to see companies getting exposed for these kinds of violations. However, their response of shooting the messenger tells me that they will not simply roll over and give up their source code. I strongly suggest contacting the owners of the open source projects and talking them into having a lawyer send a message to them. Those projects have the necessary legal standing to bring a meaningful copyright infringement case against Voice.ai. There are plenty of lawyers that will send a suitable message, at no cost to the projects, For example, the Software Freedom Law Center [0] provides free consultations and has a good track record. [0] https://softwarefreedom.org/about/contact/ https://softwarefreedom.org/about/contact/

ronsor 4y ago
So far I've also emailed the FSF (license-violation@gnu.org) and am currently awaiting a response.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- voakbasda 4y ago
  My understanding (which may be incorrect) is that the FSF actively defends copyright on GNU projects. They do not defend other projects, but they will consult with attorneys on matters of the licenses themselves. Nevertheless, I (and I'm sure many others here on HN) would enjoy seeing the response from the FSF.
  - ronsor 4y ago
    Praat includes code from the GNU Scientific Library (GSL)
  - jraph 4y ago
    Maybe the Software Freedom Conservancy would be more suitable? https://sfconservancy.org/ https://sfconservancy.org/
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - rascul 4y ago
    I think libgcrypt is a GNU project.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - CuriousCosmic 4y ago
    This honestly is a really good reason for (A)GPL projects to use at least one GNU (A)GPL licensed dependency. If someone does violate the license on your code, they are also transitively doing it to a bigger, angrier fish as well.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
charcircuit 4y ago
>not simply roll over and give up their source code Nothing requires them to give over the source code. They just have to stop distributing the software which is violating the license.
- jasonlotito 4y ago
  They've already distributed the software. They are required per the license to distribute the source code. They can remove the source code that requires them to do this, but existing copies of the software must are covered under the license agreements. i.e. The cat is out of the bag.
  - jahewson 4y ago
    They were also required by the license to follow the licence and yet here we are. They’re in violation of the license. They can be sued for damages.
  - charcircuit 4y ago
    That is not how it works. It was copyright infringement for them to distribute the binary without the source code. If they are made aware of this and they continue to distribute it then it becomes willful infringement each time they distribute it. Even they you were to distribute the code after the fact that doesn't forgive the copyright infringement they did early. In the end releasing the code doesn't do anything for them other than give away their IP. The best option in this scenario for them is to stop distributing the binary to avoid willful infringement and then work to remove the GPL code from the project and then start distributing it again. Do remember that the GPL is not a EULA. It only applies when you make copies of the code. Also random people can't sue over this infringement. Only the copyright owner of the code can do so.
    - sangnoir 4y ago
      > If they are made aware of this and they continue to distribute it then it becomes willful infringement each time they distribute it. They have been made aware via email, and they continue to distribute it via the download link. The is no need to couch this as a hypothetical scenario.

ronsor 4y ago

So far I've also emailed the FSF (license-violation@gnu.org) and am currently awaiting a response.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
voakbasda 4y ago
My understanding (which may be incorrect) is that the FSF actively defends copyright on GNU projects. They do not defend other projects, but they will consult with attorneys on matters of the licenses themselves. Nevertheless, I (and I'm sure many others here on HN) would enjoy seeing the response from the FSF.
- ronsor 4y ago
  Praat includes code from the GNU Scientific Library (GSL)
- jraph 4y ago
  Maybe the Software Freedom Conservancy would be more suitable? https://sfconservancy.org/ https://sfconservancy.org/
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- rascul 4y ago
  I think libgcrypt is a GNU project.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- CuriousCosmic 4y ago
  This honestly is a really good reason for (A)GPL projects to use at least one GNU (A)GPL licensed dependency. If someone does violate the license on your code, they are also transitively doing it to a bigger, angrier fish as well.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

charcircuit 4y ago

>not simply roll over and give up their source code Nothing requires them to give over the source code. They just have to stop distributing the software which is violating the license.

jasonlotito 4y ago
They've already distributed the software. They are required per the license to distribute the source code. They can remove the source code that requires them to do this, but existing copies of the software must are covered under the license agreements. i.e. The cat is out of the bag.
- jahewson 4y ago
  They were also required by the license to follow the licence and yet here we are. They’re in violation of the license. They can be sued for damages.
- charcircuit 4y ago
  That is not how it works. It was copyright infringement for them to distribute the binary without the source code. If they are made aware of this and they continue to distribute it then it becomes willful infringement each time they distribute it. Even they you were to distribute the code after the fact that doesn't forgive the copyright infringement they did early. In the end releasing the code doesn't do anything for them other than give away their IP. The best option in this scenario for them is to stop distributing the binary to avoid willful infringement and then work to remove the GPL code from the project and then start distributing it again. Do remember that the GPL is not a EULA. It only applies when you make copies of the code. Also random people can't sue over this infringement. Only the copyright owner of the code can do so.
  - sangnoir 4y ago
    > If they are made aware of this and they continue to distribute it then it becomes willful infringement each time they distribute it. They have been made aware via email, and they continue to distribute it via the download link. The is no need to couch this as a hypothetical scenario.