6 ms·

Why do you say it can't be enforced?

Karunamon 15y ago
I'll answer that - because only the developer can enforce it. Let's say you're an end user and you know for a fact that a library in a proprietary app is GPLed and the seller is not complying with the terms of the license by not coughing up the code. You don't have the legal standing to take the the seller to court and demand they comply with the terms of a license between them and the original developer of the GPL'ed code, even though you're technically a party to it as the release of the code benefits you. Law is a funny thing.
- regularfry 15y ago
  I agree in the literal sense, but couldn't you look at the GPL as an agreement between the original developer and all downstream users that the developer will enforce terms when violations are brought to light?
  - Karunamon 15y ago
    One would think - but the obligation is not there (nor should it be really, this would only hamper its further adoption even more than it already is) Agreed it's the right thing to do, but if I write a GPL module which is later used in say, a Microsoft product, I don't have the desire, the time, or even the money to take them to court.
huhtenberg 15y ago
How exactly are you going to enforce GPL compliance when a Chinese company uses your library in their proprietary product? Bonus question - what exactly will you be gaining by spending your time on enforcing the GPL compliance rather than on something else (like coding)?
- billpatrianakos 15y ago
  Nothing. That's why the GPL can be easily seem as being all about ego and anti-profits rather than freedom. Even if the company in your scenario violates the GPL it doesn't do anything to hurt software freedom. The GPL seems to be a tool to force FOSS ideals down people's throats rather than the nice sounding ideals that are the official party line. A GPL violation doesn't stop free software advocates from paying it forward and sharing and the original source is still available to anyone who wants it. But few people really want freedom. The goal of the GPL can easily be mistaken to be to turn all software into GPL software. In fact the existence of the GPL itself can also be mistaken as a clever ploy to infect non-free software and make it free.
  - icebraining 15y ago
    Sorry, but how don't see how the GPL forces anything nor does it "infect" anything. That kind of loaded terminology is just BS. The GPL offers you a deal that you can accept or refuse, just like any other license. The terms are definitively more onerous than permissive OSS licenses, but that's it.
    - billpatrianakos 15y ago
      To be clear, I really wanted to point out that it can easily be perceived the way I described. I wasn't really trying to say that it's actually so. Honestly, I'm not a big fan of the GPL myself so it probably came out that way but the bigger point wasn't about my personal preferences but just how the GPL lends itself easily to that kind of thinking.
    - Karunamon 15y ago
      >nor does it "infect" anything. Yes it does, which is part of the damn point. If you incorporate GPL'ed code into your app, your app is now subject to the same terms by default. I understand the visceral reaction to the word, but it's generally accepted that the GPL has a viral nature.
      - icebraining 15y ago
- regularfry 15y ago
  > How exactly are you going to enforce GPL compliance when a Chinese company uses your library in their proprietary product? Depends if it's hardware or software. If it's hardware, Customs gets involved. Software's harder, but the fact that there is a set of circumstances which make enforcement difficult do not make enforcement in general impossible, nor does it invalidate the concept behind the GPL. > Bonus question - what exactly will you be gaining by spending your time on enforcing the GPL compliance rather than on something else (like coding)? You'll be gaining GPL compliance. That's the point.

I'll answer that - because only the developer can enforce it. Let's say you're an end user and you know for a fact that a library in a proprietary app is GPLed and the seller is not complying with the terms of the license by not coughing up the code. You don't have the legal standing to take the the seller to court and demand they comply with the terms of a license between them and the original developer of the GPL'ed code, even though you're technically a party to it as the release of the code benefits you. Law is a funny thing.

regularfry 15y ago
I agree in the literal sense, but couldn't you look at the GPL as an agreement between the original developer and all downstream users that the developer will enforce terms when violations are brought to light?
- Karunamon 15y ago
  One would think - but the obligation is not there (nor should it be really, this would only hamper its further adoption even more than it already is) Agreed it's the right thing to do, but if I write a GPL module which is later used in say, a Microsoft product, I don't have the desire, the time, or even the money to take them to court.

huhtenberg 15y ago

How exactly are you going to enforce GPL compliance when a Chinese company uses your library in their proprietary product? Bonus question - what exactly will you be gaining by spending your time on enforcing the GPL compliance rather than on something else (like coding)?

billpatrianakos 15y ago
Nothing. That's why the GPL can be easily seem as being all about ego and anti-profits rather than freedom. Even if the company in your scenario violates the GPL it doesn't do anything to hurt software freedom. The GPL seems to be a tool to force FOSS ideals down people's throats rather than the nice sounding ideals that are the official party line. A GPL violation doesn't stop free software advocates from paying it forward and sharing and the original source is still available to anyone who wants it. But few people really want freedom. The goal of the GPL can easily be mistaken to be to turn all software into GPL software. In fact the existence of the GPL itself can also be mistaken as a clever ploy to infect non-free software and make it free.
- icebraining 15y ago
  Sorry, but how don't see how the GPL forces anything nor does it "infect" anything. That kind of loaded terminology is just BS. The GPL offers you a deal that you can accept or refuse, just like any other license. The terms are definitively more onerous than permissive OSS licenses, but that's it.
  - billpatrianakos 15y ago
    To be clear, I really wanted to point out that it can easily be perceived the way I described. I wasn't really trying to say that it's actually so. Honestly, I'm not a big fan of the GPL myself so it probably came out that way but the bigger point wasn't about my personal preferences but just how the GPL lends itself easily to that kind of thinking.
  - Karunamon 15y ago
    >nor does it "infect" anything. Yes it does, which is part of the damn point. If you incorporate GPL'ed code into your app, your app is now subject to the same terms by default. I understand the visceral reaction to the word, but it's generally accepted that the GPL has a viral nature.
    - icebraining 15y ago
regularfry 15y ago
> How exactly are you going to enforce GPL compliance when a Chinese company uses your library in their proprietary product? Depends if it's hardware or software. If it's hardware, Customs gets involved. Software's harder, but the fact that there is a set of circumstances which make enforcement difficult do not make enforcement in general impossible, nor does it invalidate the concept behind the GPL. > Bonus question - what exactly will you be gaining by spending your time on enforcing the GPL compliance rather than on something else (like coding)? You'll be gaining GPL compliance. That's the point.