4 ms·

You’re missing the fact that they are pedaling GPL software, and thus they are inclined to be offering it for free to the whole world, definitionally.

by donatj 3y ago

lagniappe 3y ago
I'm asking this non-facetiously: Is there a wikipedia page or a written record of all the people/corps who've been taken to task in court over a GPL violation, or a large company such as IBM? If yes, was the penalty commensurate?
- donatj 3y ago
  This appears to be a decent though seemingly incomplete list with outcomes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_license_litigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_license_litigation
  - komatineni 3y ago
    Thanks for the pointer actually.
  - lagniappe 3y ago
    Thanks, this is just what I was looking for.
    - away271828 3y ago
      It is incomplete however. For example, there was a long-running lawsuit against VMware that was never resolved. [1] Was sort of an odd case and pretty much no one else in the industry wanted to go near it. [1] https://www.zdnet.com/article/linux-developer-abandons-vmware-lawsuit/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/linux-developer-abandons-vmwar...
springogeek 3y ago
The source of GPL software can be sold, it just has to be available to users of the software.
eesmith 3y ago
> offering it for free to the whole world, definitionally That's definitionally not true. Quoting https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html ] if you are redistributing copies of free software, you might as well charge a substantial fee and make some money. Redistributing free software is a good and legitimate activity; if you do it, you might as well make a profit from it. ... ] Except for one special situation, the GNU General Public License (GNU GPL) has no requirements about how much you can charge for distributing a copy of free software. You can charge nothing, a penny, a dollar, or a billion dollars. It's up to you, and the marketplace, ... That's why the linked-to essays says "Technically, the GPL allows [a paywall]" from the text.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
diffeomorphism 3y ago
No, you are very much encouraged to sell GPL software: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html
edgyquant 3y ago
No they only have to offer source code to users of their software. In order to use their software you have to buy a license. They have been giving it away for years but are not obligated to. When GNU first came out they sold their source code for thousands of dollars and this is the format GPL was written to enforce.
LaSombra 3y ago
Auto makers, TV makers, and others use GPL software left and right and they don't, or rarely, offer a easy way to obtain it. How's it different?
- justsomehnguy 3y ago
  You could run the things on CentOS just fine, but when you had need 'a supported solution' you just bought RHEL and did all the same things, just against 'a supportrd solution' and RH got their money.
- yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
  > Auto makers, TV makers, and others use GPL software left and right and they don't, or rarely, offer a easy way to obtain it. To be clear, if they don't provide source code of GPL software to customers, that's an actual outright violation of the license.
  - LaSombra 3y ago
    Correct. But don't you have to be an owner of their products to ask for the GPL'ed code?
    - pabs3 3y ago
      No, anyone can definitely email them and ask for the code. If they refuse then thats a GPL violation and the copyright owner can sue them. The Software Freedom Conservancy are also working on a case using the legal theory that downstream recipients of GPLed code are third-party beneficiaries of the GPL agreement between the copyright holder and the redistributor, and as such, they are entitled to the source code and can sue for it. Hopefully they win, send them some donations towards legal costs if you want to help out. https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html
      - yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
        > No, anyone can definitely email them and ask for the code. If they refuse then thats a GPL violation and the copyright owner can sue them. Curious; I was quite sure that only recipients of binaries (basically, users of the program) were entitled to get source code, but the relevant part of the GPLv2 (https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html) at least looks like: 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following: a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.) which does indeed seem to suggest that if you're not preemptively shipping source to customers along with the binaries then "any third party" can ask for the code. Which is interesting context here; it would be interesting to hear an actual lawyer's reading of the situation, because that feels like such a big difference that it should have come up already.

You’re missing the fact that they are pedaling GPL software, and thus they are inclined to be offering it for free to the whole world, definitionally.

by donatj 3y ago

You’re missing the fact that they are pedaling GPL software, and thus they are inclined to be offering it for free to the whole world, definitionally.

lagniappe 3y ago

I'm asking this non-facetiously: Is there a wikipedia page or a written record of all the people/corps who've been taken to task in court over a GPL violation, or a large company such as IBM? If yes, was the penalty commensurate?

donatj 3y ago
This appears to be a decent though seemingly incomplete list with outcomes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_license_litigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_license_litigation
- komatineni 3y ago
  Thanks for the pointer actually.
- lagniappe 3y ago
  Thanks, this is just what I was looking for.
  - away271828 3y ago
    It is incomplete however. For example, there was a long-running lawsuit against VMware that was never resolved. [1] Was sort of an odd case and pretty much no one else in the industry wanted to go near it. [1] https://www.zdnet.com/article/linux-developer-abandons-vmware-lawsuit/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/linux-developer-abandons-vmwar...

springogeek 3y ago

The source of GPL software can be sold, it just has to be available to users of the software.

eesmith 3y ago

> offering it for free to the whole world, definitionally That's definitionally not true. Quoting https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html ] if you are redistributing copies of free software, you might as well charge a substantial fee and make some money. Redistributing free software is a good and legitimate activity; if you do it, you might as well make a profit from it. ... ] Except for one special situation, the GNU General Public License (GNU GPL) has no requirements about how much you can charge for distributing a copy of free software. You can charge nothing, a penny, a dollar, or a billion dollars. It's up to you, and the marketplace, ... That's why the linked-to essays says "Technically, the GPL allows [a paywall]" from the text.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

diffeomorphism 3y ago

No, you are very much encouraged to sell GPL software: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html

edgyquant 3y ago

No they only have to offer source code to users of their software. In order to use their software you have to buy a license. They have been giving it away for years but are not obligated to. When GNU first came out they sold their source code for thousands of dollars and this is the format GPL was written to enforce.

LaSombra 3y ago

Auto makers, TV makers, and others use GPL software left and right and they don't, or rarely, offer a easy way to obtain it. How's it different?

justsomehnguy 3y ago
You could run the things on CentOS just fine, but when you had need 'a supported solution' you just bought RHEL and did all the same things, just against 'a supportrd solution' and RH got their money.
yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
> Auto makers, TV makers, and others use GPL software left and right and they don't, or rarely, offer a easy way to obtain it. To be clear, if they don't provide source code of GPL software to customers, that's an actual outright violation of the license.
- LaSombra 3y ago
  Correct. But don't you have to be an owner of their products to ask for the GPL'ed code?
  - pabs3 3y ago
    No, anyone can definitely email them and ask for the code. If they refuse then thats a GPL violation and the copyright owner can sue them. The Software Freedom Conservancy are also working on a case using the legal theory that downstream recipients of GPLed code are third-party beneficiaries of the GPL agreement between the copyright holder and the redistributor, and as such, they are entitled to the source code and can sue for it. Hopefully they win, send them some donations towards legal costs if you want to help out. https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html
    - yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
      > No, anyone can definitely email them and ask for the code. If they refuse then thats a GPL violation and the copyright owner can sue them. Curious; I was quite sure that only recipients of binaries (basically, users of the program) were entitled to get source code, but the relevant part of the GPLv2 (https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html) at least looks like: 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following: a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.) which does indeed seem to suggest that if you're not preemptively shipping source to customers along with the binaries then "any third party" can ask for the code. Which is interesting context here; it would be interesting to hear an actual lawyer's reading of the situation, because that feels like such a big difference that it should have come up already.