3 ms·
> That uncertainty plus the viral nature of the GPL means that there's no way to know for sure that you won't be forced to open your whole codebase at some poin
by foobarqux 12y ago
> That uncertainty plus the viral nature of the GPL means that there's no way to know for sure that you won't be forced to open your whole codebase at some point in the future.
That doesn't happen. A violator would be ordered to pay compensation and remove the offending code, though they could reach a settlement to do something else.
- venomsnake 12y agoIs the GPL that toothless?
- foobarqux 12y agoThat's the law, not GPL.
- kazinator 12y agoWhat would constitute having "teeth" for you? Mandatory jail terms even when parties are willing to settle? Execution by firing squad?
- venomsnake 12y agoWell C levels executives are the only persons I support unconditional death penalty for. But mandatory opening of all source code will be more valuable than money.
- joshyeager 12y agoOk, good point. But for a small- to mid-sized software company, a big fine or a big reengineering effort is pretty dangerous too.
- foobarqux 12y agoSure, but the vast majority of GPL violations are no more surprising than "shared source" proprietary code: Using each imposes certain obligations and no one is confused about the latter, I don't know why so many people think GPL is some kind of trick designed to trap you, it's not.