3 ms·

> do the absolutely bear minimum not to be sued for GPL Violation Could you expand on what you mean? Are they violating the GPL? What does it mean to do the ba

> do the absolutely bear minimum not to be sued for GPL Violation Could you expand on what you mean? Are they violating the GPL? What does it mean to do the bare minimum but not violate the GPL? It's unrealistic to expect corporations to go above and beyond when complying with something like a code license. If you want someone to do something, put it in the text of the license.

cma 4y ago
If you lower expectations to literal legal text only, then they don't even have the "it would be bad for PR and developer relations not to do it" incentive.
Firmwarrior 4y ago
They drop a zip file with their open source code somewhere on the website at some point, but don't try to upstream patches, work with Linux kernel people in public, or provide a public git history To be fair, it's a tough sell to tell your management chain that you have to spend a week every month arguing and refactoring code just to make some internet people happy about it
- justinclift 4y ago
  > it's a tough sell to tell your management chain ... Sounds like a weird management chain then. Generally I've seen the conversation go along the lines of "we should 'contribute' these changes back, so the upstream people can check them over for bugs, and we don't have to write this stuff again for the next product".
  - Firmwarrior 4y ago
    ah, I dunno if anyone in the linux community is really going to be going out of their way to fix MediaTek's shitty code for free as a favor to Amazon
phpisthebest 4y ago
>>It's unrealistic to expect corporations to go above and beyond when complying with something like a code license. This is completely false as they (amazon) want to market themselves has developer friendly and supportative of open source Their actions however say something completely different. Further Loads of companies and organizations go beyond the legally required bare minimum in all kinds of things not just open source. You have a completely warped view of human interactions if you want to boil all humanity, and all interactions to just what is "legally required of us"
stonemetal12 4y ago
>It's unrealistic to expect corporations to go above and beyond when complying with something like a code license. I agree up to the point where they start going on about how much they love and support open source. At that point going beyond legal necessity should be a given.
- pc86 4y ago
  Why? Who decides they need to do that? How do you explain to a CEO or CFO that you want to spend more resources (money sure but time as well) than required doing things out of love? Who decides how much more? If the legal requirement is X, and you do X+Y, there will still be people bitching about the fact that you didn't do Z, or that Y is really just self-serving, or something else. Someone someone will always complain about what you're doing because you're a profit-making enterprise.
  - stonemetal12 4y ago
    >Who decides they need to do that? The corporation decides to do that. They shouldn't advertise that they support charities if they don't actually support charities.
    - pc86 4y ago
      Who's talking about supporting charities?

cma 4y ago

If you lower expectations to literal legal text only, then they don't even have the "it would be bad for PR and developer relations not to do it" incentive.

Firmwarrior 4y ago

They drop a zip file with their open source code somewhere on the website at some point, but don't try to upstream patches, work with Linux kernel people in public, or provide a public git history To be fair, it's a tough sell to tell your management chain that you have to spend a week every month arguing and refactoring code just to make some internet people happy about it

justinclift 4y ago
> it's a tough sell to tell your management chain ... Sounds like a weird management chain then. Generally I've seen the conversation go along the lines of "we should 'contribute' these changes back, so the upstream people can check them over for bugs, and we don't have to write this stuff again for the next product".
- Firmwarrior 4y ago
  ah, I dunno if anyone in the linux community is really going to be going out of their way to fix MediaTek's shitty code for free as a favor to Amazon

phpisthebest 4y ago

>>It's unrealistic to expect corporations to go above and beyond when complying with something like a code license. This is completely false as they (amazon) want to market themselves has developer friendly and supportative of open source Their actions however say something completely different. Further Loads of companies and organizations go beyond the legally required bare minimum in all kinds of things not just open source. You have a completely warped view of human interactions if you want to boil all humanity, and all interactions to just what is "legally required of us"

stonemetal12 4y ago

>It's unrealistic to expect corporations to go above and beyond when complying with something like a code license. I agree up to the point where they start going on about how much they love and support open source. At that point going beyond legal necessity should be a given.

pc86 4y ago
Why? Who decides they need to do that? How do you explain to a CEO or CFO that you want to spend more resources (money sure but time as well) than required doing things out of love? Who decides how much more? If the legal requirement is X, and you do X+Y, there will still be people bitching about the fact that you didn't do Z, or that Y is really just self-serving, or something else. Someone someone will always complain about what you're doing because you're a profit-making enterprise.
- stonemetal12 4y ago
  >Who decides they need to do that? The corporation decides to do that. They shouldn't advertise that they support charities if they don't actually support charities.
  - pc86 4y ago
    Who's talking about supporting charities?