3 ms·

Okay, uh, enforcing GPL in this way doesn't particularly seem worthwhile to me. If the end result of GPL is 1) a few companies completely refuse to distribute

by jes5199 13y ago

Okay, uh, enforcing GPL in this way doesn't particularly seem worthwhile to me. If the end result of GPL is 1) a few companies completely refuse to distribute GPLed software (Apple, for example) and 2) the rest of the companies use GPLed code without following the rules but with no consequence 3) huge amounts of money and effort are thrown against these forces, with only symbolic levels of success in changing company behavior ... why are we even bothering? That Don Quixote slide seems especially appropriate.

justinpombrio 13y ago
Which other way would you suggest? Also, I was under the impression that very little money and effort was put into attempting to enforce the GPL through lawsuits (and these slides don't seem to suggest otherwise, naming just a few people and suites over the years). Is it more common than I think?
- jes5199 13y ago
  No, you're right, I didn't get any actual sense of the scale of the endeavor. Maybe this guy just loves doing it full time. But to answer your question: this whole thing makes me want to reconsider licensing my software as GPL. Just do MIT and not have to think about it.
  - gillianseed 13y ago
    Well you don't 'have to think about it' even if you licence your code as GPL (or any other licence). It's not as if someone forces you to chase after violators.
    - jes5199 13y ago
      I guess you're right. That article a few days ago has me fretting about GPL 2 vs GPL 3 and the incompatibility between them. I mean, I'd like my code to be used in whatever projects need it, and I'd like to be able to accept code back from them. But it seems like it would be really easy to accept code that accidentally constrains you to a particular license.
      - belorn 13y ago
        If you want compatibility between the two GPL licenses, the easiest way to do so is to license the software under GPLv2 or any later version. Alternatively, one can add an exception for GPLv2 while licensing the code under GPLv3.
      - gillianseed 13y ago
        Well if the main criteria is that want your code to be used in whatever projects need it, then permissive licencing is most likely your best option. If you do want to use GPL then just like belorn said, the 'or later' clause keeps GPL compability against later versions and I believe a majority of GPL projects use that. Linux is of course a notable exception.
gillianseed 13y ago
While this article lists bad apples, there's a ton of companies which comply with GPL (and other licences from which they use code). If that was not the case Linux would not be where it is today.
belorn 13y ago
While some companies are fine in infringing copyright, only a very small subset would do so after being informed. Doing willingly copyright infringement inside the US can be quite costly. Just doing a look at the last 10 years court cases, the hundred millions in damages looks expensive. Software developers has a similar situation as photographers has. Almost all companies ignore copyright on images when they publish a website, but they do respect the copyright after being informed about infringement. So it only takes a singular individual from the public to inform the company. It doesn't need to be the author of the work to get the license enforced in the common case.

by jes5199 13y ago

justinpombrio 13y ago

Which other way would you suggest? Also, I was under the impression that very little money and effort was put into attempting to enforce the GPL through lawsuits (and these slides don't seem to suggest otherwise, naming just a few people and suites over the years). Is it more common than I think?

jes5199 13y ago
No, you're right, I didn't get any actual sense of the scale of the endeavor. Maybe this guy just loves doing it full time. But to answer your question: this whole thing makes me want to reconsider licensing my software as GPL. Just do MIT and not have to think about it.
- gillianseed 13y ago
  Well you don't 'have to think about it' even if you licence your code as GPL (or any other licence). It's not as if someone forces you to chase after violators.
  - jes5199 13y ago
    I guess you're right. That article a few days ago has me fretting about GPL 2 vs GPL 3 and the incompatibility between them. I mean, I'd like my code to be used in whatever projects need it, and I'd like to be able to accept code back from them. But it seems like it would be really easy to accept code that accidentally constrains you to a particular license.
    - belorn 13y ago
      If you want compatibility between the two GPL licenses, the easiest way to do so is to license the software under GPLv2 or any later version. Alternatively, one can add an exception for GPLv2 while licensing the code under GPLv3.
    - gillianseed 13y ago
      Well if the main criteria is that want your code to be used in whatever projects need it, then permissive licencing is most likely your best option. If you do want to use GPL then just like belorn said, the 'or later' clause keeps GPL compability against later versions and I believe a majority of GPL projects use that. Linux is of course a notable exception.

gillianseed 13y ago

While this article lists bad apples, there's a ton of companies which comply with GPL (and other licences from which they use code). If that was not the case Linux would not be where it is today.

belorn 13y ago

While some companies are fine in infringing copyright, only a very small subset would do so after being informed. Doing willingly copyright infringement inside the US can be quite costly. Just doing a look at the last 10 years court cases, the hundred millions in damages looks expensive. Software developers has a similar situation as photographers has. Almost all companies ignore copyright on images when they publish a website, but they do respect the copyright after being informed about infringement. So it only takes a singular individual from the public to inform the company. It doesn't need to be the author of the work to get the license enforced in the common case.