3 ms·

Right. In other words, the GPL absolutely permits you to - take GPL code, do whatever you want with it and NEVER GIVE IT TO ANYONE. - take GPL code, have some

by jrm4 3y ago

Right. In other words, the GPL absolutely permits you to - take GPL code, do whatever you want with it and NEVER GIVE IT TO ANYONE. - take GPL code, have someone to pay you do something crazy with it, give it to them and neither of you choose to never give it to anyone. The only thing the GPL says is that, whoever you give it to gets all the rights you got when you took it.

hansvm 3y ago
But the GPL explicitly forbids you from forbidding that person who paid you from sharing the code. If an employee works on a Linux driver that you'd prefer be a trade secret, those GPL imports are going to be a massive problem.
- lelanthran 3y ago
  > But the GPL explicitly forbids you from forbidding that person who paid you from sharing the code. Well, yes. That's the point after all - you took someone else's code, made changes to it, gave it to a third person, so now you can't very well tell that third person "Sorry, that code I gave you is now a secret!" > If an employee works on a Linux driver that you'd prefer be a trade secret, those GPL imports are going to be a massive problem. In theory, sure. In practice, it hasn't stopped any manufacturer from distributing binary blobs. Nvidia, with proprietary drivers, is still the most popular graphics card on Linux[1]. So here we see that there is no problem for a vendor to be wildly profitable and have the best penetration of all its competitors even though they are strictly adhering to the license. If an employee is working on any Linux driver, your business is depending on the success of Linux itself to make that driver economically viable to develop. If your success depends on building on GPL code and not giving back, then maybe try to find success elsewhere. [1] IIRC, that is. I last checked the Steam stats a long time ago, they may have changed.
  - hansvm 3y ago
    > In theory, sure. In practice... The whole point of a contract is to spell out in enough detail for both parties (and if it comes down to it a judge) what the expectations of a given arrangement happen to be. Plenty of employees won't actively exercise all their rights under the GPL (related: [0]), but that fact is independent of the GPL itself. > If your success depends on building on GPL code and not giving back, then maybe try to find success elsewhere. Just 3 lines ago didn't you point out a massive company successfully building on GPL code and not giving back, touting their ability to do so as a pro for GPLv2? Regardless, the quibble wasn't with whether that clause is reasonable (I prefer to release under GPL), but that paying somebody to do something crazy with the code and then not release it isn't actually in your control if the code in question is released under GPLv2; for that to happen you require either trust/luck or a different license. > Well, yes. That's the point after all - you took someone else's code, made changes to it, gave it to a third person, so now you can't very well tell that third person "Sorry, that code I gave you is now a secret!" Or you took someone else's code, paid a third party for business-critical customizations, and expect the product you paid for to not wind up in the hands of a competitor. While we're stuck with intellectual property as a meaningful legal concept there's always going to be another way to look at the problem evoking different emotions and notions of what's fair or reasonable. [0] https://xkcd.com/1958/ https://xkcd.com/1958/
    - lelanthran 3y ago
      > Just 3 lines ago didn't you point out a massive company successfully building on GPL code and not giving back, touting their ability to do so as a pro for GPLv2? No, I did not. I pointed out how strictly adhering to the GPL was not in any way an impediment to the success of writing device drivers. > Or you took someone else's code, paid a third party for business-critical customizations, and expect the product you paid for to not wind up in the hands of a competitor. If you don't want your 0.001% of contributions to a product to benefit others, including those who built 99.99% of the product, then don't contribute to it. Put your 0.001% effort into some other product that lets you keep the entire 100% for yourself. You're effectively arguing that it's unfair that you can't take someone else's labour and sell it on without their permission. I really don't feel bad for you in that case. It's someone else's labour, not yours. Crying "unfair" because you want to add 0.001% of value and want to keep 100% of value doesn't get you much sympathy. Especially when, as you pointed out when you referred to my nvidia example, this isn't a hurdle to someone who simply wants to use the GPL software and add their own value into it without violating the license. It's perfectly possible, just not palatable to people who want the original labour for themselves. NVidia supplying binary blobs aren't trying to own the entire Linux kernel for anyone using their blobl. Someone supplying some proprietary driver, and wanting to keep that driver secret, is doing the opposite.

by jrm4 3y ago

hansvm 3y ago

But the GPL explicitly forbids you from forbidding that person who paid you from sharing the code. If an employee works on a Linux driver that you'd prefer be a trade secret, those GPL imports are going to be a massive problem.

lelanthran 3y ago
> But the GPL explicitly forbids you from forbidding that person who paid you from sharing the code. Well, yes. That's the point after all - you took someone else's code, made changes to it, gave it to a third person, so now you can't very well tell that third person "Sorry, that code I gave you is now a secret!" > If an employee works on a Linux driver that you'd prefer be a trade secret, those GPL imports are going to be a massive problem. In theory, sure. In practice, it hasn't stopped any manufacturer from distributing binary blobs. Nvidia, with proprietary drivers, is still the most popular graphics card on Linux[1]. So here we see that there is no problem for a vendor to be wildly profitable and have the best penetration of all its competitors even though they are strictly adhering to the license. If an employee is working on any Linux driver, your business is depending on the success of Linux itself to make that driver economically viable to develop. If your success depends on building on GPL code and not giving back, then maybe try to find success elsewhere. [1] IIRC, that is. I last checked the Steam stats a long time ago, they may have changed.
- hansvm 3y ago
  > In theory, sure. In practice... The whole point of a contract is to spell out in enough detail for both parties (and if it comes down to it a judge) what the expectations of a given arrangement happen to be. Plenty of employees won't actively exercise all their rights under the GPL (related: [0]), but that fact is independent of the GPL itself. > If your success depends on building on GPL code and not giving back, then maybe try to find success elsewhere. Just 3 lines ago didn't you point out a massive company successfully building on GPL code and not giving back, touting their ability to do so as a pro for GPLv2? Regardless, the quibble wasn't with whether that clause is reasonable (I prefer to release under GPL), but that paying somebody to do something crazy with the code and then not release it isn't actually in your control if the code in question is released under GPLv2; for that to happen you require either trust/luck or a different license. > Well, yes. That's the point after all - you took someone else's code, made changes to it, gave it to a third person, so now you can't very well tell that third person "Sorry, that code I gave you is now a secret!" Or you took someone else's code, paid a third party for business-critical customizations, and expect the product you paid for to not wind up in the hands of a competitor. While we're stuck with intellectual property as a meaningful legal concept there's always going to be another way to look at the problem evoking different emotions and notions of what's fair or reasonable. [0] https://xkcd.com/1958/ https://xkcd.com/1958/
  - lelanthran 3y ago
    > Just 3 lines ago didn't you point out a massive company successfully building on GPL code and not giving back, touting their ability to do so as a pro for GPLv2? No, I did not. I pointed out how strictly adhering to the GPL was not in any way an impediment to the success of writing device drivers. > Or you took someone else's code, paid a third party for business-critical customizations, and expect the product you paid for to not wind up in the hands of a competitor. If you don't want your 0.001% of contributions to a product to benefit others, including those who built 99.99% of the product, then don't contribute to it. Put your 0.001% effort into some other product that lets you keep the entire 100% for yourself. You're effectively arguing that it's unfair that you can't take someone else's labour and sell it on without their permission. I really don't feel bad for you in that case. It's someone else's labour, not yours. Crying "unfair" because you want to add 0.001% of value and want to keep 100% of value doesn't get you much sympathy. Especially when, as you pointed out when you referred to my nvidia example, this isn't a hurdle to someone who simply wants to use the GPL software and add their own value into it without violating the license. It's perfectly possible, just not palatable to people who want the original labour for themselves. NVidia supplying binary blobs aren't trying to own the entire Linux kernel for anyone using their blobl. Someone supplying some proprietary driver, and wanting to keep that driver secret, is doing the opposite.