4 ms·

Yup. Only with GPL do sloppy development practices (lack of automated builds, sloppy version tracking, ...) tend to directly result in legal liability. Other l

Yup. Only with GPL do sloppy development practices (lack of automated builds, sloppy version tracking, ...) tend to directly result in legal liability. Other licenses just don't make those sorts of demands.

simoncion 12y ago
Not so. Think of a license that limits you to X deployments per unit of time, and forbids any additional deployments. If your automated deployment system performs X+Y deployments (where Y > 0) in a unit of time, then you're in violation of your contract and legally liable for your actions. Is this contrived? A little. But, realistically: 1) The GPL isn't the only license that you can violate with sloppy dev practices. 2) In the overwhelming majority of GPL violation cases, the remedy is for the violator to simply comply with the code's license and ship the code covered by the GPL.
- tbrownaw 12y ago
  Contrived examples are contrived. 1) Sibling post mentioned forgetting to include notices in the documentation. Which is a valid counterpoint, but I would assume requires more of a one-time effort than a permanent change (improvement) in work procedures. 2) Assuming they can even find the right version.
  - simoncion 12y ago
    > I would assume [remembering to put copyright notices in documentation] requires more of a one-time effort than a permanent change (improvement) in work procedures. You assume wrong. There is always another project, or another library.
belorn 12y ago
People with sloppy development practices could easily forget to include all the required copyright notices. All popular license require that the copyright notice is included in distribution, and forgetting to do so puts one under legal liability.
- tbrownaw 12y ago
  Hm, maybe. OTOH, I'd think (hope) that not adding a note to the documentation when you add the code (ie, while it's still fresh in your mind) would require at least slightly more sloppiness than succumbing to poor dev practices over the longer term would require.
  - belorn 12y ago
    Looking at games, they normally add third-party licenses as part of the credits. Where the note goes and how it will reach the consumer seem as a non-trivial problems to solve. I know that some software used to ship individual mit/bsd notices in the box for each individual third-party library. If you depend on a large number of projects, say 20-30 which seems common in AAA games, that is a lot of notices, paper, and management in order to follow all the licenses correctly. But I would not try to guess how sloppy someone need to be to do it incorrectly.
davexunit 12y ago
Ah yes, let's blame the GPL for their copyright infringement!

simoncion 12y ago

Not so. Think of a license that limits you to X deployments per unit of time, and forbids any additional deployments. If your automated deployment system performs X+Y deployments (where Y > 0) in a unit of time, then you're in violation of your contract and legally liable for your actions. Is this contrived? A little. But, realistically: 1) The GPL isn't the only license that you can violate with sloppy dev practices. 2) In the overwhelming majority of GPL violation cases, the remedy is for the violator to simply comply with the code's license and ship the code covered by the GPL.

tbrownaw 12y ago
Contrived examples are contrived. 1) Sibling post mentioned forgetting to include notices in the documentation. Which is a valid counterpoint, but I would assume requires more of a one-time effort than a permanent change (improvement) in work procedures. 2) Assuming they can even find the right version.
- simoncion 12y ago
  > I would assume [remembering to put copyright notices in documentation] requires more of a one-time effort than a permanent change (improvement) in work procedures. You assume wrong. There is always another project, or another library.

belorn 12y ago

People with sloppy development practices could easily forget to include all the required copyright notices. All popular license require that the copyright notice is included in distribution, and forgetting to do so puts one under legal liability.

tbrownaw 12y ago
Hm, maybe. OTOH, I'd think (hope) that not adding a note to the documentation when you add the code (ie, while it's still fresh in your mind) would require at least slightly more sloppiness than succumbing to poor dev practices over the longer term would require.
- belorn 12y ago
  Looking at games, they normally add third-party licenses as part of the credits. Where the note goes and how it will reach the consumer seem as a non-trivial problems to solve. I know that some software used to ship individual mit/bsd notices in the box for each individual third-party library. If you depend on a large number of projects, say 20-30 which seems common in AAA games, that is a lot of notices, paper, and management in order to follow all the licenses correctly. But I would not try to guess how sloppy someone need to be to do it incorrectly.

davexunit 12y ago

Ah yes, let's blame the GPL for their copyright infringement!