4 ms·

> I personally recommend downloading a copy of the Voice.ai software and contacting the developers to request source code. This approach is what drives corpora

> I personally recommend downloading a copy of the Voice.ai software and contacting the developers to request source code. This approach is what drives corporations to adopt zero-GPL policies. The GPLv3 explicitly includes language about how to cure a violation (spoiler alert: it's not "haha, we caught you - now hand over all of your source!"), and both of the mentioned violations are available under GPLv3. This person needs to notify the copyright holders of the GPL libraries, who can then contact the copyright holders of the violating software, starting the timer on the window in which the offending software must be cured.

doesnt_know 4y ago
> This approach is what drives corporations to adopt zero-GPL policies. Good. It's literally the point of choosing the GPL that organisations producing proprietary software can't benefit and mix in GPL licensed work without publishing the source.
- favorited 4y ago
  It still doesn't accomplish anything. There's nothing magic about the GPL as a license which can force proprietary code to be released as open-source. Emailing someone and saying "your product contains GPL'd code, so give me your proprietary source code" is meaningless. The copyright-holder can take action against an organization producing proprietary software who is violating their copyright. Legally, they're violating the rights of the copyright-holder, not the end-user. > The claim that a GPL violation could lead to the forcing open of proprietary code that has wrongfully included GPL'd components is simply wrong. There is no provision in the Copyright Act to require distribution of infringing work on altered terms. What copyright plaintiffs are entitled to, under the Act, are damages, injunctions to prevent infringing distribution, and--where appropriate--attorneys' fees. A defendant found to have wrongfully included GPL'd code in its own proprietary work can be mulcted in damages for the distribution that has already occurred, and prevented from distributing its product further. That's a sufficient disincentive to make wrongful use of GPL'd program code. And it is all that the Copyright Act permits. https://lwn.net/Articles/61292/ https://lwn.net/Articles/61292/
  - doesnt_know 4y ago
    It doesn't really matter if in practise the source is released, that's just one possible (ideal) outcome. As long as damage is done to those that abuse the license, that's ultimately what matters as a disincentive to prevent further/on-going abuse. > A defendant found to have wrongfully included GPL'd code in its own proprietary work can be mulcted in damages for the distribution that has already occurred, and prevented from distributing its product further. That's a sufficient disincentive to make wrongful use of GPL'd program code. And it is all that the Copyright Act permits. From your own quote. This is ultimately good enough. You either get the source or the proprietary software is knee-capped/no longer allowed to be distributed. From a Free Software perspective that's a win.
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    Nobody wants anybody's proprietary source code. What they want is for the users of GPLed code to conform to the license terms or cease to use it.
4bpp 4y ago
Is there a problem with corporations that have no intention to contribute source code back to the public adopting zero-GPL policies? It seems that this conveys more of a disadvantage upon them than the presumed alternative (they use GPLed code with abandon to build more closed-source products more easily, knowing that if caught they can always weasel themselves out of any consequences by a "curing" process), resulting in closed-source software being of lower quality, resulting in fewer incentives for users to run it and more market share and eyeballs for open-source software, which is an outcome well-aligned with the preferences of the typical developer who puts their software under GPL.
- midoridensha 4y ago
  If you're talking about using GPL software in-house, that's perfectly fine. The GPL only requires you make changes available to those that you distribute the software to. So if you download GPL software, make changes to it or integrate it into your own program, and then you keep all that strictly in-house (only your own company employees can see it and use it), that's not a GPL violation, and you don't have to give your changes (or other software linked to it) to anyone outside the company.
codeguro 4y ago
> This approach is what drives corporations to adopt zero-GPL policies. Good! That’s precisely the whole point of the GPL. That is: to prevent proprietary code, which harms users, from being mixed with Free Software! Proprietary software is harmful to the users. OpenAI is malware, it has cryptominers in it. It also sets off antivirus scanners. Now we’ll get to see if their claims are true by looking at the code for ourselves
- devalidating 4y ago
  If AI can create human readable code that compiles down to the exact same thing, would that negate it?
goodpoint 4y ago
> This approach is what drives corporations to adopt zero-GPL policies Such companies are freeloaders at best and sometimes even hostile to FOSS and to users.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  There's nothing wrong with not using Free Software.

doesnt_know 4y ago

> This approach is what drives corporations to adopt zero-GPL policies. Good. It's literally the point of choosing the GPL that organisations producing proprietary software can't benefit and mix in GPL licensed work without publishing the source.

favorited 4y ago
It still doesn't accomplish anything. There's nothing magic about the GPL as a license which can force proprietary code to be released as open-source. Emailing someone and saying "your product contains GPL'd code, so give me your proprietary source code" is meaningless. The copyright-holder can take action against an organization producing proprietary software who is violating their copyright. Legally, they're violating the rights of the copyright-holder, not the end-user. > The claim that a GPL violation could lead to the forcing open of proprietary code that has wrongfully included GPL'd components is simply wrong. There is no provision in the Copyright Act to require distribution of infringing work on altered terms. What copyright plaintiffs are entitled to, under the Act, are damages, injunctions to prevent infringing distribution, and--where appropriate--attorneys' fees. A defendant found to have wrongfully included GPL'd code in its own proprietary work can be mulcted in damages for the distribution that has already occurred, and prevented from distributing its product further. That's a sufficient disincentive to make wrongful use of GPL'd program code. And it is all that the Copyright Act permits. https://lwn.net/Articles/61292/ https://lwn.net/Articles/61292/
- doesnt_know 4y ago
  It doesn't really matter if in practise the source is released, that's just one possible (ideal) outcome. As long as damage is done to those that abuse the license, that's ultimately what matters as a disincentive to prevent further/on-going abuse. > A defendant found to have wrongfully included GPL'd code in its own proprietary work can be mulcted in damages for the distribution that has already occurred, and prevented from distributing its product further. That's a sufficient disincentive to make wrongful use of GPL'd program code. And it is all that the Copyright Act permits. From your own quote. This is ultimately good enough. You either get the source or the proprietary software is knee-capped/no longer allowed to be distributed. From a Free Software perspective that's a win.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  Nobody wants anybody's proprietary source code. What they want is for the users of GPLed code to conform to the license terms or cease to use it.

4bpp 4y ago

Is there a problem with corporations that have no intention to contribute source code back to the public adopting zero-GPL policies? It seems that this conveys more of a disadvantage upon them than the presumed alternative (they use GPLed code with abandon to build more closed-source products more easily, knowing that if caught they can always weasel themselves out of any consequences by a "curing" process), resulting in closed-source software being of lower quality, resulting in fewer incentives for users to run it and more market share and eyeballs for open-source software, which is an outcome well-aligned with the preferences of the typical developer who puts their software under GPL.

midoridensha 4y ago
If you're talking about using GPL software in-house, that's perfectly fine. The GPL only requires you make changes available to those that you distribute the software to. So if you download GPL software, make changes to it or integrate it into your own program, and then you keep all that strictly in-house (only your own company employees can see it and use it), that's not a GPL violation, and you don't have to give your changes (or other software linked to it) to anyone outside the company.

codeguro 4y ago

> This approach is what drives corporations to adopt zero-GPL policies. Good! That’s precisely the whole point of the GPL. That is: to prevent proprietary code, which harms users, from being mixed with Free Software! Proprietary software is harmful to the users. OpenAI is malware, it has cryptominers in it. It also sets off antivirus scanners. Now we’ll get to see if their claims are true by looking at the code for ourselves

devalidating 4y ago
If AI can create human readable code that compiles down to the exact same thing, would that negate it?

goodpoint 4y ago

> This approach is what drives corporations to adopt zero-GPL policies Such companies are freeloaders at best and sometimes even hostile to FOSS and to users.

pessimizer 4y ago
There's nothing wrong with not using Free Software.