4 ms·

> I could bring up how proprietary software companies go out of their way to insult the GPL by calling it "viral" but the breathtaking dishonesty of that argume

> I could bring up how proprietary software companies go out of their way to insult the GPL by calling it "viral" but the breathtaking dishonesty of that argument alone makes my case for me. I'm willing to say it -- the reason this narrative has so much purchase is that the FSF wants the GPL to be "viral" via its "interpretations" of its own license. If you don't want people to think you're part of the loony fringes, stop hanging out at the loony fringes. As to whether the GPL actually is legally "viral", I have my doubts. I think the reason you actually don't see the FSF, SFLC, SFC in court is they think they've already lost at the fringes. The last several years of copyright law has been very, very hostile to any of the legal arguments they might make, say, re: dynamically linking modules. Credibility-wise they'd be wiped out. So, they keep soldiering on, pretending to man the battlements day after day.

msla 4y ago
You're telling lies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Software_Foundation,_Inc._v._Cisco_Systems,_Inc%2e https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Software_Foundation,_Inc.... > Free Software Foundation, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. was a lawsuit initiated by the Free Software Foundation (FSF) against Cisco Systems on December 11, 2008 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.[1] The FSF claimed that various products sold by Cisco under the Linksys brand had violated the licensing terms of many programs on which FSF held copyright, including GCC, GNU Binutils, and the GNU C Library. Most of these programs were licensed under the GNU General Public License, and a few under the GNU Lesser General Public License. [snip] > On May 20, 2009 the parties announced a settlement that included Cisco appointing a director to ensure Linksys products comply with free-software licenses, and Cisco making an undisclosed financial contribution to the FSF.[9][10] Cisco wouldn't settle if it could win. Even more: https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/11452/have-there-been-any-lawsuits-involving-breach-of-open-source-licences https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/11452/have-th...
- mustache_kimono 4y ago
  > You're telling lies: Yikes. > Cisco wouldn't settle if it could win. Of course you're right. No company would ever settle a suit it could win, after spending hundreds of thousands on attorneys fees, and going through discovery. /s Note: I think Cisco was clearly in the wrong here. I think the GPL was enforceable in this instance. I just think don't the more loony claims (a dynamically linked module automatically creates a derivative work) at the fringes make much sense re: copyright law.
  - msla 4y ago
    > Yikes. If you're telling the truth, back up your assertions. I've backed up mine. > it could win after spending hundreds of thousands on attorneys fees. You don't think Cisco has attorneys on retainer? If the BSD zealots have to resort to dishonesty, people shouldn't trust them. Also, I can't respond anymore, for some reason. I don't appreciate your trying to obfuscate what we were talking about (the enforceability of the GPL) or making it seem like settling isn't a victory.
    - mustache_kimono 4y ago
      > If you're telling the truth, back up your assertions. I've backed up mine. You'll have to tell me what we are we arguing about? Dynamic linking? The viral-ity of a license? Whether the GPL is enforceable? You're kinda all over the map. > You don't think Cisco has attorneys on retainer? Sure, but a retainer doesn't cover all your legal bills. You may pay a modest retainer for the availability of a certain firm/attorney, but it never covers the bulk of litigation, which is extremely expensive. > If the BSD zealots have to resort to dishonesty, people shouldn't trust them. Absolutely not a BSD zealot. More of an MPL2 man for my personal projects. Usually happy to contribute to any OSI approved licensed project though!

msla 4y ago

You're telling lies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Software_Foundation,_Inc._v._Cisco_Systems,_Inc%2e https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Software_Foundation,_Inc.... > Free Software Foundation, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. was a lawsuit initiated by the Free Software Foundation (FSF) against Cisco Systems on December 11, 2008 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.[1] The FSF claimed that various products sold by Cisco under the Linksys brand had violated the licensing terms of many programs on which FSF held copyright, including GCC, GNU Binutils, and the GNU C Library. Most of these programs were licensed under the GNU General Public License, and a few under the GNU Lesser General Public License. [snip] > On May 20, 2009 the parties announced a settlement that included Cisco appointing a director to ensure Linksys products comply with free-software licenses, and Cisco making an undisclosed financial contribution to the FSF.[9][10] Cisco wouldn't settle if it could win. Even more: https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/11452/have-there-been-any-lawsuits-involving-breach-of-open-source-licences https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/11452/have-th...

mustache_kimono 4y ago
> You're telling lies: Yikes. > Cisco wouldn't settle if it could win. Of course you're right. No company would ever settle a suit it could win, after spending hundreds of thousands on attorneys fees, and going through discovery. /s Note: I think Cisco was clearly in the wrong here. I think the GPL was enforceable in this instance. I just think don't the more loony claims (a dynamically linked module automatically creates a derivative work) at the fringes make much sense re: copyright law.
- msla 4y ago
  > Yikes. If you're telling the truth, back up your assertions. I've backed up mine. > it could win after spending hundreds of thousands on attorneys fees. You don't think Cisco has attorneys on retainer? If the BSD zealots have to resort to dishonesty, people shouldn't trust them. Also, I can't respond anymore, for some reason. I don't appreciate your trying to obfuscate what we were talking about (the enforceability of the GPL) or making it seem like settling isn't a victory.
  - mustache_kimono 4y ago
    > If you're telling the truth, back up your assertions. I've backed up mine. You'll have to tell me what we are we arguing about? Dynamic linking? The viral-ity of a license? Whether the GPL is enforceable? You're kinda all over the map. > You don't think Cisco has attorneys on retainer? Sure, but a retainer doesn't cover all your legal bills. You may pay a modest retainer for the availability of a certain firm/attorney, but it never covers the bulk of litigation, which is extremely expensive. > If the BSD zealots have to resort to dishonesty, people shouldn't trust them. Absolutely not a BSD zealot. More of an MPL2 man for my personal projects. Usually happy to contribute to any OSI approved licensed project though!