4 ms·

Just set my code on one project from MIT to GPL, since it's a personal project without public funding. I was expecting this kind of consequences if someone brea

Just set my code on one project from MIT to GPL, since it's a personal project without public funding. I was expecting this kind of consequences if someone breaches the license, I'm glad it's the case.

account42 3y ago
You're glad that you have to pay lawyers for a decade to get some recourse?
- jemorya 3y ago
  A more generous interpretation of their comment is that they are glad that some legal precedence has been set. The same case would not go through courts for another decade.
  - flanked-evergl 3y ago
    Why not?
    - hk__2 3y ago
      Because next time the decision from the Cour de cassation will already exist.
- kelnos 3y ago
  On the other hand, many companies view GPL software as some sort of kryptonite these days. So a good number of them -- at least the ones that are knowledgeable about software licensing -- won't even go near your software. Personally I'd consider this a good thing; opinions vary, of course. Certainly there will be some companies that will just see open source code out there and use it, without considering the license at all (not even sure this is most often malice; I expect usually it's just a random developer who doesn't know any better). But ultimately it's up to the copyright holder if they want to bring some sort of legal action or not. With MIT, you can't stop anyone from doing much of anything, for the most part. With the GPL, you at least give yourself the option, should you decide it's worth pursuing.
  - maelito 3y ago
    > So a good number of them -- at least the ones that are knowledgeable about software licensing -- won't even go near your software Yes, very good thing for me. I'm building a Web alternative to Google Maps. It's OK if no big company reuses my code. I just want to make it free to see, and to contribute, not to use without contribution. If I was building a library, that sure would be a different matter.

account42 3y ago

You're glad that you have to pay lawyers for a decade to get some recourse?

jemorya 3y ago
A more generous interpretation of their comment is that they are glad that some legal precedence has been set. The same case would not go through courts for another decade.
- flanked-evergl 3y ago
  Why not?
  - hk__2 3y ago
    Because next time the decision from the Cour de cassation will already exist.
kelnos 3y ago
On the other hand, many companies view GPL software as some sort of kryptonite these days. So a good number of them -- at least the ones that are knowledgeable about software licensing -- won't even go near your software. Personally I'd consider this a good thing; opinions vary, of course. Certainly there will be some companies that will just see open source code out there and use it, without considering the license at all (not even sure this is most often malice; I expect usually it's just a random developer who doesn't know any better). But ultimately it's up to the copyright holder if they want to bring some sort of legal action or not. With MIT, you can't stop anyone from doing much of anything, for the most part. With the GPL, you at least give yourself the option, should you decide it's worth pursuing.
- maelito 3y ago
  > So a good number of them -- at least the ones that are knowledgeable about software licensing -- won't even go near your software Yes, very good thing for me. I'm building a Web alternative to Google Maps. It's OK if no big company reuses my code. I just want to make it free to see, and to contribute, not to use without contribution. If I was building a library, that sure would be a different matter.