9 ms·

At this point it's starting to seem like the GPL was only ever a bluff and it's being called on us now.... As someone who uses Linux every day this hurts and m

At this point it's starting to seem like the GPL was only ever a bluff and it's being called on us now.... As someone who uses Linux every day this hurts and makes me wonder what the future will be as hardware gets locked away from us with the very tools we made to use it.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
acedTrex 4y ago
GPL has always been mostly a bluff, it's occasionally attempted to be enforced but its a drop in the bucket compared to the ocean of infringement.
- hospitalJail 4y ago
  This gives me hope for using Arduino and LGPL. I want to make a product, I don't even mind giving away the code. I'm just worried since its an embedded system, its hard to update or whatever. As many times as I read the legal stuff, its over my head. I can't understand how you can let someone update part of the code on something compiled. Its not like I'm going to have a screen on my device to let users read the code either. If someone wants to fight a legal battle, its really due to my incompetence, not malice.
  - LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
    For [L]GPLv2 it's super simple - release any changed code and anything that links closely to it. If you publish all your source you basically can't fail to do this right. For GPLv3, it's that simple most of the time. You talk about embedded which suggests you may be thinking primarily of the "tivoization" clauses designed to prevent user lockout. Again, if you're a fully open source project this will be hard to fail because the user should be able to just copy whatever you do in development. It's when you try to prevent user updates while allowing your own that this applies.
    - hospitalJail 4y ago
      That was basically my thought, I'm just worried that if I link to the code online, that someone could claim 'Well I don't have internet'. Bam lawsuit.
      - h2odragon 4y ago
        I suspect that publishing it public to the internet is sufficient. If you really wanna cover your ass offer to mail someone the source on a CD for "reasonable handling fees"... which can reasonably be fairly high if someone demands such service.
        zerocrates 4y ago
        This was changed in GPLv3. To my reading, section 6(b)(2) means that if you're distributing a physical product, you can just include a link to a URL where the source can be downloaded for free. You could read 6(b) to mean that you have to offer consumers the choice between physical-delivery-at-cost and for-free-download of the source... but I don't think that's the right reading.
      - pabs3 4y ago
        Maybe offer the source code at the point of purchase? Could even sell USB/SD with source code on it. Folks who want the code offline can buy them and copy the code where they want it. OTOH, the internet is a "medium customarily used for software interchange" so maybe that would be fine, but the internet wouldn't "accompany" the device. Also, in GPLv2 you are allowed to just send a note "you can get source from us delivered on a storage device for $X", so if you do the purchase thing, plus write a note with every device about how to get the code on the internet or on disk, you should be fine.
  - jimnotgym 4y ago
    I think it is their stated aim at sfc to enforce compliance, not to sue. If they see you are not complying they will ask you to comply. Doesn't sound like something to be scared of?
    - pabs3 4y ago
      Indeed, and their principles while enforcing compliance are eminently reasonable: https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/principles.html https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/principles.htm...
  - mfuzzey 4y ago
    >I can't understand how you can let someone update part of the code on something compiled. You can provide your closed source part as a precompiled library or object file together with the source code for the LGPL part and build scripts that let the recipient relink it with a (possibly modified version of) the LGPL code to generate a new final binary. A pain yes but not impossible. Having a screen or not is irrelevant, nothing says the recipient has to access the source on the same device as the binaries run.
  - saghm 4y ago
    IANAL, but I don't think that the part in the GPL about modification makes any requirement that you facilitate modifying compiled binaries. My understanding is that the requirement is essentially that distributing the binary requires you to distribute the source as well; if someone modifies that source code you provide and distributes a binary they compile from that modified code, they need to share the modifications as source as well. This is also my understanding of why the AGPL was created to try to close the loophole of running GPL code on the backend; since running code on a server doesn't entail distributing the server binary to people who access the service, the GPL didn't enforce any requirements on sharing any modifications to code that was modified and used as part of the backend for the service. Some felt that this went against the spirit of the GPL, so a new license that made this also explicitly disallowed was created. As for the LGPL, my recollection is that it differs from the GPL in creating an exception for dynamically linking to the compiled binary; the phrasing of the (non-L) GPL requires that any "derivative works" of the GPL-licensed product (I can't remember if that's the exact term, but it's a something similarly general) must abide by the GPL, which could be interpreted as applying to something that dynamically links to a library licensed under the GPL. Licensing something under the LGPL gives permission for users to dynamically link to your product without requiring them to share the code linking to it.
    - pabs3 4y ago
      The point of the LGPL is that it allows static or dynamic linking with proprietary software, but it requires that users be able to modify the LGPL part and relink it with the proprietary part and have the result work, as long as the modified part is compatible with the proprietary part. With dynamic linking thats simple, just drop in a new LGPL library, but with static linking you have to share the .o files for the proprietary software to enable user relinking.
  - joezydeco 4y ago
    I'll chime with my experience in embedded systems. In the last 2-3 companies I've worked with the directive has been "no GPLv3/LGPLv3, period. You will be fired if you ship with it." The legal departments just don't want to deal with it at all.
colechristensen 4y ago
Is there not some sort of legal defense fund organization to help enforce these licenses?
- pabs3 4y ago
  The article this thread is about was posted by Software Freedom Conservancy, who enforce copyleft licenses, for the Linux kernel and other projects. You can help fund their efforts with donations.
joe_the_user 4y ago
The GPL has been validated in court many times by now. That doesn't mean they'll win this case but there's a significant amount of precedent protecting it at this point. Edit: It's remarkable to see a raft of uninformed comments here. What's up with that? Once most people in HN knew the story of Linux, Gnu and so forth.
- ikiris 4y ago
  The more topics you are knowledgeable about on HN, the more glaring the mass lack of competence the comments generally have except for topics like algorithms. Especially on anything bordering economics, medicine, and some others. It's similar to knoll's law. The libertarian / austrian (economics) skews are sometimes wild, and equally wildly inaccurate, sometimes bordering on conspiracy / delusional thinking.
  - spacechild1 4y ago
    > The libertarian / austrian I am Austrian and I am a bit confused...
    - ikiris 4y ago
      sorry, meant specifically austrian school of economics there. Austrians the people are cool :)
      - spacechild1 4y ago
        No worries! TIL
        hinkley 4y ago
        apparently he has a problem with your schools though.
  - joe_the_user 4y ago
    I don't think I've gotten that much more knowledgeable in the last few years but maybe I should take that as the explanation for HN seeming to decline - it's certainly the most flattering possibility.
whateveracct 4y ago
This is like saying copyright is a bluff because a corporate violates a person's rights and that person doesn't have the resources of a corporation to immediately go after them.
CatWChainsaw 4y ago
It will be grim, since everything will be silos, and monetized, and perhaps not even interoperable anymore, to really emphasize the lock-in.
phpisthebest 4y ago
GPL for Linux is not a Bluff, it is a stated fact they (the Linux Foundation) will not enforce it. Publically stated, and supported by their corporate overlords... err "sponsors"
- SllX 4y ago
  Can you cite the page? I found a page talking about how they won’t enforce their trademark against people who use it, but this is not the same as not enforcing copyright. Thanks in advance!
  - phpisthebest 4y ago
    If you know, and followed the enactment of the "Linux Kernel Community Enforcement Statement " [1] [2] [3] which started out as an effort to stop a "rouge" developer from being a copyright toll, then further devolved with interactions with the core linux group and SFC based on a fundamental difference in the understanding of the GPL problem, and what GPL enforcement should be SFC wants to use the law as a stick, while trying to get people to comply with out legal action. Many core members prefer to not even engage with the threat of legal action at all, they believe that simply asking nicely will get companies like VmWare to comply. of course this is rarely true but..... [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gregkh/driver-core.git/tree/Documentation/process/kernel-enforcement-statement.rst https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gregkh/drive... [2] http://kroah.com/log/blog/2017/10/16/linux-kernel-community-enforcement-statement/ http://kroah.com/log/blog/2017/10/16/linux-kernel-community-... [3] http://kroah.com/log/blog/2017/10/16/linux-kernel-community-enforcement-statement-faq/ http://kroah.com/log/blog/2017/10/16/linux-kernel-community-...
    - SllX 4y ago
      I didn’t know about or follow any of that, so your links were helpful. Thanks! After looking into this and reading your three links, I couldn’t find a conclusive answer to my follow up question, so maybe you know: did the Linux Foundation ever serve a legal purpose of pursuing copyright violations and take point in defending the copyright holders that contributed to the Linux Kernel? Near as I can tell, it appears to be largely up to individual copyright holders. Even that agreement seems to be an article of trust from individuals saying they’ll abide by the extra paragraphs and not doggedly pursue copyright violations so long as violators act in good faith about taking corrective action in a timely manner.
__MatrixMan__ 4y ago
It's only a bluff if we do nothing about it. Maybe the government doesn't have the enforcement spine for the job, but if they can make it clear who is in violation, well now we have a list of targets. We just need to create some incentives to not be on that list.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

acedTrex 4y ago

GPL has always been mostly a bluff, it's occasionally attempted to be enforced but its a drop in the bucket compared to the ocean of infringement.

hospitalJail 4y ago
This gives me hope for using Arduino and LGPL. I want to make a product, I don't even mind giving away the code. I'm just worried since its an embedded system, its hard to update or whatever. As many times as I read the legal stuff, its over my head. I can't understand how you can let someone update part of the code on something compiled. Its not like I'm going to have a screen on my device to let users read the code either. If someone wants to fight a legal battle, its really due to my incompetence, not malice.
- LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
  For [L]GPLv2 it's super simple - release any changed code and anything that links closely to it. If you publish all your source you basically can't fail to do this right. For GPLv3, it's that simple most of the time. You talk about embedded which suggests you may be thinking primarily of the "tivoization" clauses designed to prevent user lockout. Again, if you're a fully open source project this will be hard to fail because the user should be able to just copy whatever you do in development. It's when you try to prevent user updates while allowing your own that this applies.
  - hospitalJail 4y ago
    That was basically my thought, I'm just worried that if I link to the code online, that someone could claim 'Well I don't have internet'. Bam lawsuit.
    - h2odragon 4y ago
      I suspect that publishing it public to the internet is sufficient. If you really wanna cover your ass offer to mail someone the source on a CD for "reasonable handling fees"... which can reasonably be fairly high if someone demands such service.
      - zerocrates 4y ago
        This was changed in GPLv3. To my reading, section 6(b)(2) means that if you're distributing a physical product, you can just include a link to a URL where the source can be downloaded for free. You could read 6(b) to mean that you have to offer consumers the choice between physical-delivery-at-cost and for-free-download of the source... but I don't think that's the right reading.
    - pabs3 4y ago
      Maybe offer the source code at the point of purchase? Could even sell USB/SD with source code on it. Folks who want the code offline can buy them and copy the code where they want it. OTOH, the internet is a "medium customarily used for software interchange" so maybe that would be fine, but the internet wouldn't "accompany" the device. Also, in GPLv2 you are allowed to just send a note "you can get source from us delivered on a storage device for $X", so if you do the purchase thing, plus write a note with every device about how to get the code on the internet or on disk, you should be fine.
- jimnotgym 4y ago
  I think it is their stated aim at sfc to enforce compliance, not to sue. If they see you are not complying they will ask you to comply. Doesn't sound like something to be scared of?
  - pabs3 4y ago
    Indeed, and their principles while enforcing compliance are eminently reasonable: https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/principles.html https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/principles.htm...
- mfuzzey 4y ago
  >I can't understand how you can let someone update part of the code on something compiled. You can provide your closed source part as a precompiled library or object file together with the source code for the LGPL part and build scripts that let the recipient relink it with a (possibly modified version of) the LGPL code to generate a new final binary. A pain yes but not impossible. Having a screen or not is irrelevant, nothing says the recipient has to access the source on the same device as the binaries run.
- saghm 4y ago
  IANAL, but I don't think that the part in the GPL about modification makes any requirement that you facilitate modifying compiled binaries. My understanding is that the requirement is essentially that distributing the binary requires you to distribute the source as well; if someone modifies that source code you provide and distributes a binary they compile from that modified code, they need to share the modifications as source as well. This is also my understanding of why the AGPL was created to try to close the loophole of running GPL code on the backend; since running code on a server doesn't entail distributing the server binary to people who access the service, the GPL didn't enforce any requirements on sharing any modifications to code that was modified and used as part of the backend for the service. Some felt that this went against the spirit of the GPL, so a new license that made this also explicitly disallowed was created. As for the LGPL, my recollection is that it differs from the GPL in creating an exception for dynamically linking to the compiled binary; the phrasing of the (non-L) GPL requires that any "derivative works" of the GPL-licensed product (I can't remember if that's the exact term, but it's a something similarly general) must abide by the GPL, which could be interpreted as applying to something that dynamically links to a library licensed under the GPL. Licensing something under the LGPL gives permission for users to dynamically link to your product without requiring them to share the code linking to it.
  - pabs3 4y ago
    The point of the LGPL is that it allows static or dynamic linking with proprietary software, but it requires that users be able to modify the LGPL part and relink it with the proprietary part and have the result work, as long as the modified part is compatible with the proprietary part. With dynamic linking thats simple, just drop in a new LGPL library, but with static linking you have to share the .o files for the proprietary software to enable user relinking.
- joezydeco 4y ago
  I'll chime with my experience in embedded systems. In the last 2-3 companies I've worked with the directive has been "no GPLv3/LGPLv3, period. You will be fired if you ship with it." The legal departments just don't want to deal with it at all.

colechristensen 4y ago

Is there not some sort of legal defense fund organization to help enforce these licenses?

pabs3 4y ago
The article this thread is about was posted by Software Freedom Conservancy, who enforce copyleft licenses, for the Linux kernel and other projects. You can help fund their efforts with donations.

joe_the_user 4y ago

The GPL has been validated in court many times by now. That doesn't mean they'll win this case but there's a significant amount of precedent protecting it at this point. Edit: It's remarkable to see a raft of uninformed comments here. What's up with that? Once most people in HN knew the story of Linux, Gnu and so forth.

ikiris 4y ago
The more topics you are knowledgeable about on HN, the more glaring the mass lack of competence the comments generally have except for topics like algorithms. Especially on anything bordering economics, medicine, and some others. It's similar to knoll's law. The libertarian / austrian (economics) skews are sometimes wild, and equally wildly inaccurate, sometimes bordering on conspiracy / delusional thinking.
- spacechild1 4y ago
  > The libertarian / austrian I am Austrian and I am a bit confused...
  - ikiris 4y ago
    sorry, meant specifically austrian school of economics there. Austrians the people are cool :)
    - spacechild1 4y ago
      No worries! TIL
      - hinkley 4y ago
        apparently he has a problem with your schools though.
- joe_the_user 4y ago
  I don't think I've gotten that much more knowledgeable in the last few years but maybe I should take that as the explanation for HN seeming to decline - it's certainly the most flattering possibility.

whateveracct 4y ago

This is like saying copyright is a bluff because a corporate violates a person's rights and that person doesn't have the resources of a corporation to immediately go after them.

CatWChainsaw 4y ago

It will be grim, since everything will be silos, and monetized, and perhaps not even interoperable anymore, to really emphasize the lock-in.

phpisthebest 4y ago

GPL for Linux is not a Bluff, it is a stated fact they (the Linux Foundation) will not enforce it. Publically stated, and supported by their corporate overlords... err "sponsors"

SllX 4y ago
Can you cite the page? I found a page talking about how they won’t enforce their trademark against people who use it, but this is not the same as not enforcing copyright. Thanks in advance!
- phpisthebest 4y ago
  If you know, and followed the enactment of the "Linux Kernel Community Enforcement Statement " [1] [2] [3] which started out as an effort to stop a "rouge" developer from being a copyright toll, then further devolved with interactions with the core linux group and SFC based on a fundamental difference in the understanding of the GPL problem, and what GPL enforcement should be SFC wants to use the law as a stick, while trying to get people to comply with out legal action. Many core members prefer to not even engage with the threat of legal action at all, they believe that simply asking nicely will get companies like VmWare to comply. of course this is rarely true but..... [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gregkh/driver-core.git/tree/Documentation/process/kernel-enforcement-statement.rst https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gregkh/drive... [2] http://kroah.com/log/blog/2017/10/16/linux-kernel-community-enforcement-statement/ http://kroah.com/log/blog/2017/10/16/linux-kernel-community-... [3] http://kroah.com/log/blog/2017/10/16/linux-kernel-community-enforcement-statement-faq/ http://kroah.com/log/blog/2017/10/16/linux-kernel-community-...
  - SllX 4y ago
    I didn’t know about or follow any of that, so your links were helpful. Thanks! After looking into this and reading your three links, I couldn’t find a conclusive answer to my follow up question, so maybe you know: did the Linux Foundation ever serve a legal purpose of pursuing copyright violations and take point in defending the copyright holders that contributed to the Linux Kernel? Near as I can tell, it appears to be largely up to individual copyright holders. Even that agreement seems to be an article of trust from individuals saying they’ll abide by the extra paragraphs and not doggedly pursue copyright violations so long as violators act in good faith about taking corrective action in a timely manner.

__MatrixMan__ 4y ago

It's only a bluff if we do nothing about it. Maybe the government doesn't have the enforcement spine for the job, but if they can make it clear who is in violation, well now we have a list of targets. We just need to create some incentives to not be on that list.