3 ms·
This will (if it goes the way the SFC wants) definitely make the GPL stronger. However, I'm worried whether this might make it so strong that companies start c
by tgsovlerkhgsel 3y ago
This will (if it goes the way the SFC wants) definitely make the GPL stronger.
However, I'm worried whether this might make it so strong that companies start considering GPL-licensed content toxic.
Historically, the risk of actual, serious consequences from accidentally or negligently (and perhaps even intentionally) violating the GPL was effectively zero. The range of people who could sue you was limited and outside of a few projects, most never did.
With this, you'd have to dot your i's and cross your t's on GPL compliance, because if you got any detail wrong, random customers could start hitting you with lawsuits. (Which I'd expect to have some potentially catastrophic worst-case outcomes if they bundled third-party code under a closed license, i.e. which they cannot release under GPL, with GPL code.)
In fact, it seems like something similar happened around GPL enforcement through BusyBox: https://lwn.net/Articles/478361/ https://lwn.net/Articles/478361/
Best case, since there is so much hard-to-avoid GPL code (including the Linux kernel), we'll see much better compliance and code availability, especially around embedded devices. Worst case, we get a new class of patent-troll style parasites that use the legal system to terrorize, extort and/or bankrupt anyone who distributes anything that touched GPL software.
- nagisa 3y ago> However, I'm worried whether this might make it so strong that companies start considering GPL-licensed content toxic. Why is that a problem? Many already do consider anything involving the three letters (even if there’s an A preceding them) toxic and its their problem to think through it. Nobody is forcing them to include GPL code into their products, so if they think choosing alternatives is more profitable then all the power to them.
- tgsovlerkhgsel 3y ago> Why is that a problem? Because that has the risk to move the world away from open source and more towards closed source.
- elteto 3y agoWithout GPL enforcement you end up with closed source too: they take it, modify it, and don’t distribute their changes. Fuck them. If they want to get freebies then they have to share. If not they are welcome to write their own from scratch.
- tgsovlerkhgsel 3y agoIn the case of e.g. the Linux kernel, many contribute back because maintaining a private fork is unsustainable.
- wizzwizz4 3y agoI can't think of any other example than the Linux kernel; and even then, plenty of people neglect to mainline their drivers.
- dagmx 3y agoBlender receives lots of corporate development. GCC as well up till when clang arrived.
- wizzwizz4 3y agoI've seen people maintain their own, incompatible forks of both of those, sometimes for quite a long time. No company maintains a fork of the entire Linux kernel in private: the closest thing is RHEL's additional hardware support, but that's basically just drivers.
- dagmx 3y agoImho they’d just move to permissive licenses like Apache 2.0. Corporations aren’t necessarily opposed to open source, as long as 1. It benefits them 2. The terms are very clear cut 3. The failure mode protects their IP The various GPL licenses fail the latter two points.
- dagmx 3y agoNit: “even if there’s an A preceding them” should definitely be “especially if there’s an A preceding them” AGPL is considered the most toxic of all the GPL variants by most (all?) corporate lawyers because it closes off any workarounds to play well with the GPL components.
- PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y agocompetition will solve that reticence or it won't. If your competitor is successfully using GPL-licensed code and you're building it all in-house, one of you is going to move faster.