5 ms·

> We do it anyway, because it's the right thing to do, but ... I don't really understand where this is going. Is there some implication that Google would stand

by doktrin 14y ago

> We do it anyway, because it's the right thing to do, but ... I don't really understand where this is going. Is there some implication that Google would stand to benefit in any way from not releasing the code?

barista 14y ago
must be the case otherwise why would they not release the Glass platform code? The kernel code is not that interesting anyways.
DannyBee 14y ago
No, it's just a common misconception about the GPL, and it actually pops up on GPL violation lists, so i figured i'd take the time to point out it's not correct, and apparently start a large group of random replies about it. I personally think the written offer approach should never have been added, but ...
- saurik 14y ago
  That written offer must accompany the physical product. Google did not do this as far as I know. I mean, if we are going to be technical about this, the GPL states that even if you distribute the code via a "network server", you still must provide, accompanying the physical product, a "written offer" (it's the same clause) to give the user said code via that path. Really, all doe88's point was is that when Google sold this thing, they were already on the hook for this: he didn't even mention the "Internet" (your technicality), he just said "release", and providing a written offer in the box would have satisfied that. I don't even think doe88 was aggravated at Google: he seemed to just be pointing out that this isn't really news.
  - DannyBee 14y ago
    You are thinking of GPLv3, not GPLv2, when you speak of the network server distribution. :)
    - jacquesm 14y ago
      I can see you're trying to perform some kind of public service by splitting legal hairs about what is/is not required but by doing so you are actually hurting the interests of your employer. By stating that Google is not required to provide the code as offered but only on written request you are very much going by the letter of the document and not by the reality of the situation, which is that by doing that you'd be putting up an unnecessary barrier. So even if you are 100% on the ball in this thread you have still managed to score an own goal. When people use words like 'required' they don't mean this in the legal narrowest possible interpretation of the words, they mean as in morally obligated. You can then put on your IP lawyer hat and show how good you are at splitting hairs but consider that you are not just speaking for yourself here but for google as a whole by invoking them and appealing to authority in the way you do.
      - deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
      - Gigablah 14y ago
        Own goal? You're the one who put the goalposts there.
      - c0g 14y ago
        He already said he thought they were morally required to release the code on the net. Also, what are you talking about?
      - cloudwalking 14y ago
        He's a lawyer, it's his job to split hairs.
      - tptacek 14y ago
        He's not trying to perform a public service. This is a thread demonstrably populated with whacked-out ideas of what the GPL says, he's a subject matter expert, and he's correcting them. He is performing a public service. You've been here long enough to see that, so I think you should start by acknowledging that.

by doktrin 14y ago

barista 14y ago

must be the case otherwise why would they not release the Glass platform code? The kernel code is not that interesting anyways.

DannyBee 14y ago

No, it's just a common misconception about the GPL, and it actually pops up on GPL violation lists, so i figured i'd take the time to point out it's not correct, and apparently start a large group of random replies about it. I personally think the written offer approach should never have been added, but ...

saurik 14y ago
That written offer must accompany the physical product. Google did not do this as far as I know. I mean, if we are going to be technical about this, the GPL states that even if you distribute the code via a "network server", you still must provide, accompanying the physical product, a "written offer" (it's the same clause) to give the user said code via that path. Really, all doe88's point was is that when Google sold this thing, they were already on the hook for this: he didn't even mention the "Internet" (your technicality), he just said "release", and providing a written offer in the box would have satisfied that. I don't even think doe88 was aggravated at Google: he seemed to just be pointing out that this isn't really news.
- DannyBee 14y ago
  You are thinking of GPLv3, not GPLv2, when you speak of the network server distribution. :)
  - jacquesm 14y ago
    I can see you're trying to perform some kind of public service by splitting legal hairs about what is/is not required but by doing so you are actually hurting the interests of your employer. By stating that Google is not required to provide the code as offered but only on written request you are very much going by the letter of the document and not by the reality of the situation, which is that by doing that you'd be putting up an unnecessary barrier. So even if you are 100% on the ball in this thread you have still managed to score an own goal. When people use words like 'required' they don't mean this in the legal narrowest possible interpretation of the words, they mean as in morally obligated. You can then put on your IP lawyer hat and show how good you are at splitting hairs but consider that you are not just speaking for yourself here but for google as a whole by invoking them and appealing to authority in the way you do.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
    - Gigablah 14y ago
      Own goal? You're the one who put the goalposts there.
    - c0g 14y ago
      He already said he thought they were morally required to release the code on the net. Also, what are you talking about?
    - cloudwalking 14y ago
      He's a lawyer, it's his job to split hairs.
    - tptacek 14y ago
      He's not trying to perform a public service. This is a thread demonstrably populated with whacked-out ideas of what the GPL says, he's a subject matter expert, and he's correcting them. He is performing a public service. You've been here long enough to see that, so I think you should start by acknowledging that.