4 ms·

Being active doesn't matter, the copyright holders still hold the copyright. How much they profit off the stolen portion is also questionable, and open source

Being active doesn't matter, the copyright holders still hold the copyright. How much they profit off the stolen portion is also questionable, and open source licenses weren't meant to extort money but to grant us rights to the code. What they should do is add attributions and fix their licensing (libogc needs to be GPLv2), or remove the code. Willingly, yesterday.

londons_explore 2y ago
The copyright holders might have allowed this use, or at least declined to pursue any enforcement.
- arghwhat 2y ago
  Note that copyright holders for an open source project is often a very long list of people that would all need to approve of having their contribution relicensed. It's a bit of a complicated matter. Considering attribution was removed, I doubt it was approved, but it's not impossible that they somehow learnt and decided not to care as enforcement can be unreasonably cumbersome.
mubou 2y ago
I was thinking more "is it possible to contact them." When I googled RTEMS I found that it's originally an OS for missile systems from 1993 O_o But I disagree. It's not extorting money to sue someone who stole your code and deliberately removed your copyright notices. The open source license only gives you the right to use the work for commercial purposes AS LONG AS you comply with the terms of the license. If you don't, then you're illegally profiting off stolen work. You can't violate the terms of a contract while still benefiting from it. I don't know how much was stolen here, but if it's foundational enough to the project that HBC had to give up development, then they might have a case, but IANAL. Not doing anything though would mean letting them get away with their ill-gotten gains (again - if true), and I just don't think that's right. Like I said, I've seen similar things happen before and it pisses me off.
- delroth 2y ago
  > HBC had to give up development HBC has not been under real development for 10+ years. This is mostly a performative act.
- OrvalWintermute 2y ago
  RTEMS is the most widely used RTOS for Science space, and it is used in medical devices also.
  - MisterTea 2y ago
    Also popular for science experiments and is supported by EPICS[2]: https://epics.anl.gov/base/RTEMS/tutorial/ https://epics.anl.gov/base/RTEMS/tutorial/ [2]https://epics.anl.gov/ https://epics.anl.gov/
- seabass-labrax 2y ago
  The opinion that parent was expressing is much the same as the motivation behind the Principles of Community-Oriented GPL Enforcement[1], which are endorsed by all the GPL enforcement initiatives. The principles acknowledge that copyright allows GPL violators to be sued for financial damages, as you point out in your post. However, they also take into account that lawsuits don't necessarily further the goals of software freedom, because excessive litigation could disincentivize people from using free software out of fear of mistakenly falling into non-compliance. As a result, it's better for free software to give violators many chances to comply and to provide guidance towards this where possible, and also seek injunctions rather than financial remedies if the court with jurisdiction allows it. The principles are well worth a read; they explain a lot about how organizations such as the Software Freedom Conservancy operate, and why the few lawsuits which they do bring are so weird. It's also worth noting that these principles are sometimes considered extreme within the free software community from the other side, which argues that the GPL should never be litigated! [1]: https://www.fsf.org/licensing/enforcement-principles https://www.fsf.org/licensing/enforcement-principles
  - ranger_danger 2y ago

londons_explore 2y ago

The copyright holders might have allowed this use, or at least declined to pursue any enforcement.

arghwhat 2y ago
Note that copyright holders for an open source project is often a very long list of people that would all need to approve of having their contribution relicensed. It's a bit of a complicated matter. Considering attribution was removed, I doubt it was approved, but it's not impossible that they somehow learnt and decided not to care as enforcement can be unreasonably cumbersome.

mubou 2y ago

I was thinking more "is it possible to contact them." When I googled RTEMS I found that it's originally an OS for missile systems from 1993 O_o But I disagree. It's not extorting money to sue someone who stole your code and deliberately removed your copyright notices. The open source license only gives you the right to use the work for commercial purposes AS LONG AS you comply with the terms of the license. If you don't, then you're illegally profiting off stolen work. You can't violate the terms of a contract while still benefiting from it. I don't know how much was stolen here, but if it's foundational enough to the project that HBC had to give up development, then they might have a case, but IANAL. Not doing anything though would mean letting them get away with their ill-gotten gains (again - if true), and I just don't think that's right. Like I said, I've seen similar things happen before and it pisses me off.

delroth 2y ago
> HBC had to give up development HBC has not been under real development for 10+ years. This is mostly a performative act.
OrvalWintermute 2y ago
RTEMS is the most widely used RTOS for Science space, and it is used in medical devices also.
- MisterTea 2y ago
  Also popular for science experiments and is supported by EPICS[2]: https://epics.anl.gov/base/RTEMS/tutorial/ https://epics.anl.gov/base/RTEMS/tutorial/ [2]https://epics.anl.gov/ https://epics.anl.gov/
seabass-labrax 2y ago
The opinion that parent was expressing is much the same as the motivation behind the Principles of Community-Oriented GPL Enforcement[1], which are endorsed by all the GPL enforcement initiatives. The principles acknowledge that copyright allows GPL violators to be sued for financial damages, as you point out in your post. However, they also take into account that lawsuits don't necessarily further the goals of software freedom, because excessive litigation could disincentivize people from using free software out of fear of mistakenly falling into non-compliance. As a result, it's better for free software to give violators many chances to comply and to provide guidance towards this where possible, and also seek injunctions rather than financial remedies if the court with jurisdiction allows it. The principles are well worth a read; they explain a lot about how organizations such as the Software Freedom Conservancy operate, and why the few lawsuits which they do bring are so weird. It's also worth noting that these principles are sometimes considered extreme within the free software community from the other side, which argues that the GPL should never be litigated! [1]: https://www.fsf.org/licensing/enforcement-principles https://www.fsf.org/licensing/enforcement-principles
- ranger_danger 2y ago