3 ms·

They have a great deal to lose. The consequences of being found to have violated the GPL include having your license to use GPL'ed code revoked.

by rosser 12y ago

DannyBee 12y ago
Again, no, it doesn't in the case of GPLv2 code (which is what we are talking about). See my other comment. The second they came back in compliance, they could redownload the exact source they copied, from wherever they got it, and they'd have a fresh, brand new license, with no problems. GPLv3 fixed this "loophole". In fact, you can see what others have attempted (and failed) to do to try to prevent this "loophole" from functioning. Look at: www.ximpleware.com (they were involved in GPL litigation against Versata) It says, at the bottom "All licenses to any parties in litigation with XimpleWare have been expressly terminated. No new license, and no renewal of any revoked license, is granted to those parties as a result of re-downloading software from this or any other website" This is there because they know of this exact problem, and didn't want versata to be able to avoid the lawsuit. Of course, this text does not override the GPL in any way, and since it was given to them under the GPL, they can't now go back and say "those copies you have are retroactively under a different license". So it's pointless text, but hopefully this gives you an idea that what i said is not just "random lawyer kibitzing".
- hugoroy 12y ago
  You're making this "loophole" up. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9156539 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9156539
  - DannyBee 12y ago
    No, i'm not. Shocking: heavy GNU contributor doesn't like this viewpoint :)
    - hugoroy 12y ago
      full disclosure: I have exactly 0 copyright in GNU software.
  - tptacek 12y ago
    Interesting. Is that an argument you've seen confirmed by a lawyer, or are you yourself actually a open-source software licensing lawyer, like 'DannyBee is?
    - hugoroy 12y ago
      Yes, I am a lawyer.

They have a great deal to lose. The consequences of being found to have violated the GPL include having your license to use GPL'ed code revoked.

by rosser 12y ago

They have a great deal to lose. The consequences of being found to have violated the GPL include having your license to use GPL'ed code revoked.

DannyBee 12y ago

Again, no, it doesn't in the case of GPLv2 code (which is what we are talking about). See my other comment. The second they came back in compliance, they could redownload the exact source they copied, from wherever they got it, and they'd have a fresh, brand new license, with no problems. GPLv3 fixed this "loophole". In fact, you can see what others have attempted (and failed) to do to try to prevent this "loophole" from functioning. Look at: www.ximpleware.com (they were involved in GPL litigation against Versata) It says, at the bottom "All licenses to any parties in litigation with XimpleWare have been expressly terminated. No new license, and no renewal of any revoked license, is granted to those parties as a result of re-downloading software from this or any other website" This is there because they know of this exact problem, and didn't want versata to be able to avoid the lawsuit. Of course, this text does not override the GPL in any way, and since it was given to them under the GPL, they can't now go back and say "those copies you have are retroactively under a different license". So it's pointless text, but hopefully this gives you an idea that what i said is not just "random lawyer kibitzing".

hugoroy 12y ago
You're making this "loophole" up. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9156539 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9156539
- DannyBee 12y ago
  No, i'm not. Shocking: heavy GNU contributor doesn't like this viewpoint :)
  - hugoroy 12y ago
    full disclosure: I have exactly 0 copyright in GNU software.
- tptacek 12y ago
  Interesting. Is that an argument you've seen confirmed by a lawyer, or are you yourself actually a open-source software licensing lawyer, like 'DannyBee is?
  - hugoroy 12y ago
    Yes, I am a lawyer.