4 ms·

"Because that one little "worm" - used simply to support a startup script, could have created a situation where we would have been required to open source our e

"Because that one little "worm" - used simply to support a startup script, could have created a situation where we would have been required to open source our entire product." Someone assist in my enlightenment: Under what sort of enforcement circumstances would that requirement to open-source a lot of code actually be likely? As opposed to some enforcement action where you remove the offending code.

mikeash 14y ago
As far as I know, this can't happen. The author is being highly paranoid, presumably due to being misinformed.
- saidajigumi 14y ago
  Yeah. This company was about to distribute GNU grep, meaning that they would be obligated to provide source for that version of grep, and likewise for any modifications to grep they've made. Yawn.
- rbanffy 14y ago
  When a clever person is so completely misinformed about a subject that's the very core of their business, I would rather call it FUD. And I'd also like to point out they aren't in the business of creating value, as an open source product offers more value than a black box: their want to create costs.
  - mikeash 14y ago
    I think you're right about FUD, but it's probably not him. I imagine he fell victim to the FUD, rather than intentionally creating it.
    - rbanffy 14y ago
      I always find it suspicious when someone clever falls victim of - and further spreads - FUD that is beneficial to his/her business. Remember they sell proprietary (actually, re-licensed) software that's not under one of those "dangerous" and "viral" licenses.
      - mikeash 14y ago
        We're all biased towards ideas that suit us. If the FUD is beneficial to his business then he's likely to be highly receptive to it.
aidenn0 14y ago
It can't happen. However, the plaintiff may offer to forgo monetary damages in exchange for you open-sourcing. So it becomes pay money, or open-source.
pwg 14y ago
> A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work, and which are not combined with it such as to form a larger program, in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an “aggregate” if the compilation and its resulting copyright are not used to limit the access or legal rights of the compilation's users beyond what the individual works permit. Inclusion of a covered work in an aggregate does not cause this License to apply to the other parts of the aggregate. (GPLv3) Using GNU grep, as GNU grep, and merely aggregating it with the whole, would seem, from the quote above, to not cause the whole to be GPLv3 covered. The only slightly questionable part is the "combined with it such as to form a larger program" portion of GPLv3. Is using grep, to "grep", sufficient to say that grep is "combined ... to form a larger program"? If the answer is no, then yes, the author is simply misinformed.

mikeash 14y ago

As far as I know, this can't happen. The author is being highly paranoid, presumably due to being misinformed.

saidajigumi 14y ago
Yeah. This company was about to distribute GNU grep, meaning that they would be obligated to provide source for that version of grep, and likewise for any modifications to grep they've made. Yawn.
rbanffy 14y ago
When a clever person is so completely misinformed about a subject that's the very core of their business, I would rather call it FUD. And I'd also like to point out they aren't in the business of creating value, as an open source product offers more value than a black box: their want to create costs.
- mikeash 14y ago
  I think you're right about FUD, but it's probably not him. I imagine he fell victim to the FUD, rather than intentionally creating it.
  - rbanffy 14y ago
    I always find it suspicious when someone clever falls victim of - and further spreads - FUD that is beneficial to his/her business. Remember they sell proprietary (actually, re-licensed) software that's not under one of those "dangerous" and "viral" licenses.
    - mikeash 14y ago
      We're all biased towards ideas that suit us. If the FUD is beneficial to his business then he's likely to be highly receptive to it.

aidenn0 14y ago

It can't happen. However, the plaintiff may offer to forgo monetary damages in exchange for you open-sourcing. So it becomes pay money, or open-source.

pwg 14y ago

> A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work, and which are not combined with it such as to form a larger program, in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an “aggregate” if the compilation and its resulting copyright are not used to limit the access or legal rights of the compilation's users beyond what the individual works permit. Inclusion of a covered work in an aggregate does not cause this License to apply to the other parts of the aggregate. (GPLv3) Using GNU grep, as GNU grep, and merely aggregating it with the whole, would seem, from the quote above, to not cause the whole to be GPLv3 covered. The only slightly questionable part is the "combined with it such as to form a larger program" portion of GPLv3. Is using grep, to "grep", sufficient to say that grep is "combined ... to form a larger program"? If the answer is no, then yes, the author is simply misinformed.