6 ms·

Don't go too overboard.. It doesn't look like Lego has even been contacted and asked to remedy the situation. I suggest being allowed to call them just Legos

Don't go too overboard.. It doesn't look like Lego has even been contacted and asked to remedy the situation. I suggest being allowed to call them just Legos instead of "Lego™ style plastic building blocks" would be appropriate punishment.

jollyllama 4y ago
Didn't Bricklink make the Studio software prior to Lego's 2019 acquisition? That doesn't completely justify Lego, but I think it is another bit of relevant nuance to the situation.
- sigwinch28 4y ago
  > That doesn't completely justify Lego Unless Bricklink actively hid it during acquisition it doesn't justify Lego at all.
- a2800276 4y ago
  I honestly have no idea. But the title suggests malice on the side of Lego, while it links to a forum discussion with an off the cuff remark that a library is GPL. Nothing about trying to get an unwilling company to comply or similar as I was expecting. Folks here seem to be contacting the bricklink team already for clarification, it will be interesting to see how this plays out. Feels to me like open sourcing would be a win for them, provided they don't link to any other code containing proprietary licenses.
- ben7799 4y ago
  It would have been Lego's responsibility during due diligence to do a software inventory of Bricklink and determine if there were liabilities around software licenses. It is a very common thing to do. Startups cut corners and don't get attention cause they don't have a lot of money. But get bought out by a multi-billion dollar company and it gets noticed.
- miniwark 4y ago
  One the Official Lego help page about the now retired Lego Digital Designer, they recommend to use BrickLink Studio studio instead: https://www.lego.com/en-us/service/help/apps_video_games_device_guides/apps_video_games_device_guides/about-lego-digital-designer-kA009000001dcdmCAA https://www.lego.com/en-us/service/help/apps_video_games_dev...
2h 4y ago
open source developers shouldn't have to police this, companies should just follow the licenses from the beginning. GPL doesn't say you must provide source code once you get caught, it says you must publish it the moment you release a derivative work.
- ozornin 4y ago
  > companies should just follow the licenses from the beginning Sure, should. Some don't. So, developers and activists also need to be policing it.
- elygre 4y ago
  I don’t think the gpl requires you to publish source code. It requires you to make it available on request. Thus it’s not a question about getting caught, but whether someone made a request.
  - klabb3 4y ago
    There’s a requirement to include the license with the product, isn’t there? I’d hope removing a license is actually a pretty serious offense.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - 2h 4y ago
    maybe you should find out, before spreading misinformation: > require that programs distributed as pre-compiled binaries be accompanied by a copy of the source code, a written offer to distribute the source code via the same mechanism as the pre-compiled binary, or the written offer to obtain the source code that the user got when they received the pre-compiled binary under the GPL. https://wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Terms_and_conditions https://wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Terms_...
    - jeffgreco 4y ago
s_dev 4y ago
> It doesn't look like Lego has even been contacted and asked to remedy the situation. Lego is giant international corporation with a small army of lawyers and dedicated compliance officers. They don't get the benefit of the doubt here nor if someone infringed on their IP would they 'delicately handle it' to preserve the reputation of the offender.
- a2800276 4y ago
  I didn't say they should get the benefit of the doubt. It's pretty clear cut, there's little doubt to be had. But we have no idea how they'll remedy the situation, because the situation has, in all likelyhood, not been pointed out to them at this point in time. And it's highly unlikely that their "small army of lawyers and dedicated compliance officers" would knowingly allow this. Therefore I doubt the situation is the result of actively malicious behavior.
  - s_dev 4y ago
    >I didn't say they should get the benefit of the doubt. >Therefore I doubt the situation is the result of actively malicious behavior. This is giving them the 'benefit of the doubt'.
    - omniglottal 4y ago
      This is innocence until proven guilty. Do you recommend another tactic?
      - justinclift 4y ago
        How about someone contacts them so this is moot? :)

jollyllama 4y ago

Didn't Bricklink make the Studio software prior to Lego's 2019 acquisition? That doesn't completely justify Lego, but I think it is another bit of relevant nuance to the situation.

sigwinch28 4y ago
> That doesn't completely justify Lego Unless Bricklink actively hid it during acquisition it doesn't justify Lego at all.
a2800276 4y ago
I honestly have no idea. But the title suggests malice on the side of Lego, while it links to a forum discussion with an off the cuff remark that a library is GPL. Nothing about trying to get an unwilling company to comply or similar as I was expecting. Folks here seem to be contacting the bricklink team already for clarification, it will be interesting to see how this plays out. Feels to me like open sourcing would be a win for them, provided they don't link to any other code containing proprietary licenses.
ben7799 4y ago
It would have been Lego's responsibility during due diligence to do a software inventory of Bricklink and determine if there were liabilities around software licenses. It is a very common thing to do. Startups cut corners and don't get attention cause they don't have a lot of money. But get bought out by a multi-billion dollar company and it gets noticed.
miniwark 4y ago
One the Official Lego help page about the now retired Lego Digital Designer, they recommend to use BrickLink Studio studio instead: https://www.lego.com/en-us/service/help/apps_video_games_device_guides/apps_video_games_device_guides/about-lego-digital-designer-kA009000001dcdmCAA https://www.lego.com/en-us/service/help/apps_video_games_dev...

2h 4y ago

open source developers shouldn't have to police this, companies should just follow the licenses from the beginning. GPL doesn't say you must provide source code once you get caught, it says you must publish it the moment you release a derivative work.

ozornin 4y ago
> companies should just follow the licenses from the beginning Sure, should. Some don't. So, developers and activists also need to be policing it.
elygre 4y ago
I don’t think the gpl requires you to publish source code. It requires you to make it available on request. Thus it’s not a question about getting caught, but whether someone made a request.
- klabb3 4y ago
  There’s a requirement to include the license with the product, isn’t there? I’d hope removing a license is actually a pretty serious offense.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- 2h 4y ago
  maybe you should find out, before spreading misinformation: > require that programs distributed as pre-compiled binaries be accompanied by a copy of the source code, a written offer to distribute the source code via the same mechanism as the pre-compiled binary, or the written offer to obtain the source code that the user got when they received the pre-compiled binary under the GPL. https://wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Terms_and_conditions https://wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Terms_...
  - jeffgreco 4y ago

s_dev 4y ago

> It doesn't look like Lego has even been contacted and asked to remedy the situation. Lego is giant international corporation with a small army of lawyers and dedicated compliance officers. They don't get the benefit of the doubt here nor if someone infringed on their IP would they 'delicately handle it' to preserve the reputation of the offender.

a2800276 4y ago
I didn't say they should get the benefit of the doubt. It's pretty clear cut, there's little doubt to be had. But we have no idea how they'll remedy the situation, because the situation has, in all likelyhood, not been pointed out to them at this point in time. And it's highly unlikely that their "small army of lawyers and dedicated compliance officers" would knowingly allow this. Therefore I doubt the situation is the result of actively malicious behavior.
- s_dev 4y ago
  >I didn't say they should get the benefit of the doubt. >Therefore I doubt the situation is the result of actively malicious behavior. This is giving them the 'benefit of the doubt'.
  - omniglottal 4y ago
    This is innocence until proven guilty. Do you recommend another tactic?
    - justinclift 4y ago
      How about someone contacts them so this is moot? :)