3 ms·

This is just speculation but I suspect this is a matter of being caught with their pants down. They violated the GPL, but to comply with the license would mean

by emacsen 12y ago

This is just speculation but I suspect this is a matter of being caught with their pants down. They violated the GPL, but to comply with the license would mean that they'd have to release a lot of code that they don't want to release. From the page, it seems like there's been ongoing negotiation, so I am guessing there's been a lot of stalling.

rdtsc 12y ago
> They violated the GPL, but to comply with the license would mean that they'd have to release a lot of code that they don't want to release. Well they could replace the component with proprietary (so there is not license to comply with), stop releasing the old version and then probably settle to pay fines or damages. In other words the legal outcome of GPL violations is not necessarily being forced to release the rest of the code as GPL.
- MatthewWilkes 12y ago
  Probably have to pay damages to all their commercial users, too, given they charged them for a licence for something they had no rights to distribute.
- MatthewWilkes 12y ago
  Probably have to pay damages to all their commercial users, too, given they charged them for a licence for something they had no rights to distribute.
- emacsen 12y ago
  Right but they also didn't have rights to distribute the work. There will be issues of demonstrating damages, but you can't just say "Oh sure I violated your copyright... but now that you take me to court, I'll stop." and expect to get off without paying anything.
  - rdtsc 12y ago
    Well that's why I said they'll probably be forced to pay a fine or damages. They could for example look at number of licenses VMWare sold with the GPL code in it, then take a fraction of the profits from each or something like that. Stopping will probably just be another outcome unless they can come with some kind of agreement, like a separate commercial relicensed version of the GPL (but with multiple contributors that becomes a nightmare)
- yaeger 12y ago
  >In other words the legal outcome of GPL violations is not necessarily being forced to release the rest of the code as GPL. True. I have met many people who didn't make that connection. They had this idea that if they found GPL code inside a commercial, closed source product, that it would be completely okay to start distributing this software themselves. Because in their minds, "GPL is in there, so the entire thing automatically becomes GPL licensed and everybody can distribute GPL licensed code and even charge money for it". I had to explain to them that is doesn't work that way. And if they found such a component, all they would have found was a GPL violation which they can report and which then would be an issue between the software's developers to resolve. Which may either end in them actually releasing their entire product under GPL or simply paying a fine. Out of those options I am pretty sure most would rather pay a fine than to give up their own IP to the GPL.

by emacsen 12y ago

rdtsc 12y ago

> They violated the GPL, but to comply with the license would mean that they'd have to release a lot of code that they don't want to release. Well they could replace the component with proprietary (so there is not license to comply with), stop releasing the old version and then probably settle to pay fines or damages. In other words the legal outcome of GPL violations is not necessarily being forced to release the rest of the code as GPL.

MatthewWilkes 12y ago
Probably have to pay damages to all their commercial users, too, given they charged them for a licence for something they had no rights to distribute.
MatthewWilkes 12y ago
Probably have to pay damages to all their commercial users, too, given they charged them for a licence for something they had no rights to distribute.
emacsen 12y ago
Right but they also didn't have rights to distribute the work. There will be issues of demonstrating damages, but you can't just say "Oh sure I violated your copyright... but now that you take me to court, I'll stop." and expect to get off without paying anything.
- rdtsc 12y ago
  Well that's why I said they'll probably be forced to pay a fine or damages. They could for example look at number of licenses VMWare sold with the GPL code in it, then take a fraction of the profits from each or something like that. Stopping will probably just be another outcome unless they can come with some kind of agreement, like a separate commercial relicensed version of the GPL (but with multiple contributors that becomes a nightmare)
yaeger 12y ago
>In other words the legal outcome of GPL violations is not necessarily being forced to release the rest of the code as GPL. True. I have met many people who didn't make that connection. They had this idea that if they found GPL code inside a commercial, closed source product, that it would be completely okay to start distributing this software themselves. Because in their minds, "GPL is in there, so the entire thing automatically becomes GPL licensed and everybody can distribute GPL licensed code and even charge money for it". I had to explain to them that is doesn't work that way. And if they found such a component, all they would have found was a GPL violation which they can report and which then would be an issue between the software's developers to resolve. Which may either end in them actually releasing their entire product under GPL or simply paying a fine. Out of those options I am pretty sure most would rather pay a fine than to give up their own IP to the GPL.