Slashdot Mirror
Epson Pulls Linux Software Following GPL Violations
ChrisWong writes "GPL violations has caused Epson to yank their free downloads of their ImageScan! and Photo Image Print System software for Linux. While one can use xsane instead of their ImageScan! software, the latter is easier to use and produces subjectively more attractive output."
Are we supposed to be mad at the Evil Corporation(tm) for violating the GPL, or dancing in the streets because Epson is taking proactive steps to remedy said GPL violations? Please, Slashdot, tell me how I'm supposed to think!
Nathan
At least they did the right thing... acknowledged the problem, and did an internal audit, and found a problem in the second piece of software.
The website implied that they'd have a compliant version up sometime, and that everyone should upgrade when it's available.
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
for dealing with this responsibly--assuming, of course, that the violations weren't intentional. The /. post seems to have an overtone of "because of the GPL we lost a nice piece of software". But I think that's inappropriate way to look at it. Rather,
I hope that after taking stock of the situation, Epson decides to release the source code for those programs per the terms of the GPL. That's what the GPL is trying to promote and incentivize. If we miss out on a few possibly-useful proprietary programs as a result, I can live with that.
a company doing something propelry instead of putting spin on it?
They admit the FSF informed them of violations, so they pulled the software from the site in order to check it out and get into compliance. They also drop a hint that they will encourage anyone to upgrade to the new compliant version once released.
Seems like they are playing fair to me.
The page actually states that the closure is temporary, while the GPL violations are remedied. There is absolutely nothing on that page to indicate that the software is being permanently discontinued.
Nathan
Ooh look! A real live Microsoft astroturfer... Nice one.... Hah - it makes me laugh to read it! They say "The GPL is a complicated agreement" - have you ever read the never ending Microsoft EULA? David
Come on...did you really need to reproduce this complete thing?
May we never see th
I'm in the process of purchasing printers and a company acting responsibly, with respect to the GPL or any license, would seem to be a company I'd be happy doing business with. Realistically, this is the best method to encourage hardware manufacturers to support the FSF and it's goals.
...to have a Slashdot story that has useful news but isn't also a rabble-rouser. :-)
Ah, well. I'm glad they didn't pull it completely because legal problems were a PITA.
Both Epson and the FSF did a good job here, I think.
This is a model for how future GPL violations should be handled...not tons of flames being sent to the violators (well, at least not at first }:-) )
May we never see th
I agree, it is nice to see a big company like Epson actually commit themselves to *nix support, and for them to raise their hand and say 'Ooops, we're sorting it out, sorry about that'.
Disclosure like this will mean they'll get more respect for being honest about the situation, rather than burying their head in the sand hoping people won't notice (like a certain company and their interpretation of OS security). A company who admit their mistakes will be more inclined to learn from them, rather than focusing their efforts on passing the buck.
Are you local? There's nothing for you here!
They may not want to release it under GPL if it includes their own propietary code. If they are foreced to release it anyway that will certainly bolster Microsofts argument and scare a lot of companies from using or contributing to GPLed code.
So, please keep your flames to a moderate temperature.
While it would be cool if what they did here was to GPL their whole package, and contribute to the community, it looks like they'll replace whatever minor piece of GPL code they've incorporated with something else.
Epson has been pretty good about providing relatively good documentation and developer support for their products (which is why their printers and scanners are the best supported out there by free code), even if they haven't contributed actual code or algorithms.
Sure, people could intentionally steal a GPL projects' work and call it their own (i.e. Sigma Designs theft of Xvid's codec), which is pretty slimy, but heck, sometimes people just make mistakes. Maybe someone thought a package was BSD licensed, and wasn't careful enough, or didn't understand some semantic issue of the GPL..
Or, maybe they are thieves also, but I'd give them the benefit of the doubt, and call them innocent unless proven guilty.
I know I've pimped it here before, but I don't mind doing it again. VueScan is the best scanning software for Linux, Mac OS, and Windows. It supports all Epson USB, SCSI, and IEEE-1394 flatbed scanners, and a SCSI film scanner. The program is shareware, and registration costs $40.
One of the popular Jabber clients PSI has also found some company has used their source in a closed source product, they are in talks w/ the co. and FSF.
/. I think it was an mpeg codec or something, my memory fials me (and so did a quick /. search)
I find their poll (Is the GPL inforcable) an interesting one you may want to vote on.
I also remember read about another GPL violation on
someone mentioned demanding the source code.
thats just the sort of over-reaction thats going to make a company not want to deal with linux.
be happy they are rectifying the problem.
if you want to encourage linux development, attacking anyone that slips up with reckless abandon is not the way to do it, especially when it may have been an honest mistake.
zealots dont make good reps.
There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
You're assuming that they will re-write (or, for the cynical, try to obfuscate) the portions in violation instead of linking to the GPL'd libraries and releasing the source for those, which I think is a much more likely scenario.
i always like to look on the bright side, even for astroturfers. it makes me happy that microsoft hires english majors. it's so annoying running into them in mcdonalds where they slow up lines correcting customers' grammar. employed by microsoft they're probably paid a good salary and they might even be exposed to other, more valuable skills.
US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
Epson has been much more friendly than most violators. Epson on their own chose to put up that web page and admit their violation publicly. We did not require them to do so. Almost always, compliance is reached through private discussions between the Free Software Foundation and the violating party. Only rarely (usually because a third party posts on slashdot ;)
does the public even become aware of the compliance efforts underway.
You can read FSF's General Counsel's essay for more details on FSF's GNU GPL enforcement efforts.
Sincerely,
Bradley M. Kuhn, Executive Director, Free Software Foundation
From: S.B.
To: B.G.
Subject: New FUD Needed
I'm agonized to have to inform you that the usual anti-GPL FUD we've been foistering upon the world has once again been discredited. Epson corporation was found to have violated the GPL in the company's Linux based proprietary scanning application, and had merely to remove the offending code from the application. Unfortunately for us, no FSF lawsuit was filed to force Epson to give away its I.P. as we've been claiming for some time would happen in cases of GPL violations. Those damned hippies just politely asked Epson to correct the situation.
We should wake up the slugs...err...public relations department and have them think up new anti-GPL lies...err...messages.
******************
On a serious note, this is exactly how companies -should- act when found to be violating the GPL. Just admit that it happened, correct the violation, and everyone is happy. Nobody gets sued, the company gets a round of applause for playing nice, and life goes on. Congratulations Epson! You're a model of corporate integrity.
It's strange to note that 'innocent until proven guilty' is so uncommon on slashdot that it needs to be explicitly mentioned.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
But wait, Microsoft themselves broke the law, were found guilty, and now are trying to get away by just "fixing" the problem. Shouldn't they have a punishment too? Or is it just anti-Microsoft crimes that should be punished?
Let's have some consistancy, ok? From now on, let's not ask from others more then what's required of Microsoft.
-BrentUnless they agree to the terms of the GPL, the GPL doesn't apply, and they lose all the rights it grants, and this becomes a simple copyright violation case, and they're probably justified in asking you to return the software, since they didn't have the right to give it to you in the first place.
If they've got any sense they'll do a cleanroom implementation of the problem areas.
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"The code in question is already released...somewhere...under the GPL. I was under the impression that linking to GPL libraries with closed-source software was okay, provided the source for the libraries was available.
Wow! epson happily respects and complies with the GPL! they just won another loyal customer! AGFA,Cannon and HP can all sit aside while my next new Linux scanner will be an Epson!
If we dont support the companies that not only release a Linux program/driver but also respect the GPL then we all might as well just give up and install XP like good drones.
Kudos to Epson!
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
You're thinking the LGPL. The GPL doesn't make allowances for linking. Which is why glibc (and most other projects intended to be used as libraries) are LGPL. :)
The enemies of Democracy are
When the GPL denies users access to something useful, because it generates the impression that the GPL is anti-user. (Trolls and dumb modders, note that I didn't say the GPL was anti-user, but that these types of incidents create that impression).
This is unfortunately the kind of thinking Microsoft would love to perpertuate and here they didn't have to raise a finger or spend a cent.
Just providing a viewpoint from outside the GNU rules! Linux-uber-alles camp...
---
Information wants...you to shut your pie hole.
A very good point that many people don't understand. The GPL doesn't apply unless you agree to it. It isn't an EULA that you need to agree to in order to simply -touch- the software. It's simply an attached agreement allowing you to -modify- and -distribute- the software. It grants you extra rights if you agree to the terms. If you don't agree, you don't get those rights, and then normal copyright restrictions apply.
So the worst thing that could happen to them is they get sued for copyright violation. Being forced to release their source is highly unlikely no matter if they lost or not. Though really, I think the way it's being dealt with is the best way.
The enemies of Democracy are
Until I read this on slashdot. I didnt even know that Epson had written any scanner software for Linux. Next time I go to buy a scanner, I'll now seriously consider Epson. That is providing their Linux products come back into action. Any publicity is good publicity?? G.
Legally it is probably within the infringed upon owner's rights to prosecute. However, there is no law that says that a free software developer must be as big of dick as commercial software vendors frequently are.
Unless someone gives me reason to believe otherwise, I am going to assume Epson made an honest mistake and is working in good faith to remedy that. Were it my choice, I would not try to punish them.
If you treat people with decency, they have much more positive feelings about supporting software for free OSs, and may decide it is easier and better to release some of their own code under the GPL rather than reinvent the wheel to aviod it. Sharing! What a brilliant idea!
If you actions don't lead to making the world a better place, perhaps you should rethink them.
If they plan to solve it by releasing code as required by the GPL, but are delaying the release in order to possibly remove code they don't have the legal right to GPL (for example, licensed code from another company), then it'll be a good thing.
If they plan to solve it by removing the GPL'd components and replacing them with Epson-written components, then they are no longer in violation of the GPL, but nothing has been gained by the Free Software community (unless making your proprietary competitors do a little extra work counts as a gain).
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
You can insist to have the source code of the software if you got it
Not necessarily. Read the GPL: the penalty for breach is that your rights under the license are terminated. No more, no less.
And that's if anyone can make the GPL stick; the company could easily claim that they errantly failed to license the software but certainly never agreed to the GPL. The GPL is, after all, a shrink-wrap license. Last I checked those are valid only in Virginia and Maryland.
No license = no rights for anyone but the copyright holders. And for them, reparations = cash only unless the company offers and they accept something else.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
They don't provide us with any information about their color management or dither algorithms, which seems fair to me -- that's their real "secret sauce" over their competition. We don't need that; we have bright people who can come up with clever dither algorithms, and we also have people interested in color management. It's probably better for everyone if we do things differently from Epson in that regard; it gives us opportunities to devise better algorithms.
As it happens, Epson already does help us (Gimp-print) out, in exactly the right fashion -- they provide programming manuals for their printers, usually quite promptly too.
Well then, I take it back, hats off to them, I didn't realize they were so ridiculously Free Software-friendly. I'm still slightly mystified as to why they provide(d) their own drivers as well, but I suppose the more support the better. It seems like somewhat wasted effort, but I guess Epson have their reasons.
BTW, congratulations on Gimp-Print, the output from my Stylus Photo 1290 is nothing short of stunning. Excellent work!
There's probably some subset of users that trusts Epson to write a better driver than GIMP-Print. Also, they may want to have Epson's neato dithering algorithms.
It is possible, even likely that the binary drivers contain IP they do not own, or, which they normally license to third parties.
As such, releasing the source code to that would not be a good decision on their part.
In this case I would assume it has something to do with image quality as they (as mentioned elsewhere) release their hardware manuals promptly.
The Sane backends are GPL'ed, but provide one exception: "it is permissible to link against such a library without affecting the licensing status of the program that uses the libraries." - this is a quote from the LICENSE file that is part of the Sane distribution.
EPSON KOWA did actually release the source code for their backend - even though they were not required to do so, they would still be allowed to link against the backends if their software were closed source. They did however make one exception: The image manipulation routines that they use to in their Windows and Mac drivers is delivered as a library without sources. They do provide the sources (under the GPL) for the rest.
My opinion is that they are the owner and the copyright holders of their frontend code, so they should be allowed to do anything with it - e.g. link agains a closed source library, but this is probably just my naive common sense interpretation, everybody with a law degree probably has a different opinion.
So EPSON did not try to sneak some GPL code into their closed source applications, they did not relabel GPL code, they wanted to do the right thing and provide us with their source code.
EPSON is very pro open source, they provide programming information for their scanners (and printers for the gimp-print project) and if I run into problems they even provide hardware to debug problems.
I don't get payed for saying this, but if you are in the market for a scanner (or a printer) then please consider an EPSON device. Not only are these pretty good scanners and probably the best inkjet printers around, they are very nice to us Linux users. :-)
I've never used the Epson-produced / labeled software, but XSane is one of the best, easiest scanning programs I've ever seen / used.
And since I think most software interfaces are terrible, maybe it's just that I'm a dummy with exactly umgekehrt tastes in software, but what exactly does / did the Epson software do better?
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
They may have contractual obligations that prevent them from releasing the source.
They may have licensed patents from someone else, and used them in the software. That would make it incompatible with the GPL.
Maybe they are planning on releasing the source, but needed to do an audit on it first, to make sure they were legally allowed to release it all.
I know this is slashdot, but you don't have to jump everytime a conclusion passes by.
Read more of this story at Slashdot.Read more of this story at Slashdot.Read more of this story at Slashdot.
Maybe they'll just decide that it's too expensive and too much trouble to support Linux
Which of his body parts would they want to scan?
Read more of this story at Slashdot.Read more of this story at Slashdot.Read more of this story at Slashdot.
I bought my Canon S520 before I had converted to Linux, and it worked great, but when I installed Linux, it was a NIGHTMARE to make it work. It took hours in SuSE, Lycoris, and Debian.
Next printer I get will be an Epson. I was considering an HP, but after canning Bruce Perens and Epson being nice to the Linux community, I'll make sure I get an Epson next time around.
Now, if other companies saw that playing nice got you more customers, they'd do it!
Slashdot is a waste of time. I enjoy wasting time.
And certainly a lot of CD copying is not for "backup purposes" as stated here, plenty of it is for violating copyright by distributing it.
The main difference I see is what the RIAA is trying to prevent. For instance if Epson posted rips of all the latest music on their website for you to download, the RIAA has exactly the same case as the FSF against them and can certainly force them to remove it, just like Epson had to remove these drivers. However the RIAA seems committed to trying to prevent people from doing anything with the data on the disk by artificial restricions that are not enforced by copyright or any other laws. While the FSF does not care at all if you copy the source code or back it up or make secret closed-source inhouse modifications or anything else you are allowed to do by law, and only cares if you violate the copyright for real by an actual *distribution* of the code.
GPL code will remain free and will thus *always* be in the public domain. BSD code lacks this protection. The fundamental thing which most people fail to understand is that the GPL is meant to keep the *C O D E* free, not preserve your freedoms. It does this by restricting your freedom to make the code proprietary and in doing so guarantees to you and the rest of humanity at large that the code, in all it's forms, will always remain free.
Free as in freedom, not cost. BSD code is not free, it's simply open-source. There's a fundamental difference.
GJC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
"...a while ago they asked me if I would have any objections to them taking my backend, modifying it (still under the GPL) and adding their own frontend to it..."
There's a gay joke in there somewhere.
Like Sun with Java on the desktop, the GPL tries to tightly regulate what can and can't be done source code. Like Java on the desktop the GPL will eventually whither and die because who wants to deal with that bureaucratic BULLSHIT? Either code is free (BSD) or it isn't. Restricting developer's freedoms to use the source code how they see fight is wrong.
I have released code under the GPL, and seeing as it is my code, I feel no compunction about doing it. Furthermore, I like the fact that if someone improves the program, I get the improvements back if I want them. Furthermore, when I modify someone else's GPL'ed code, I am usually champing at the bit to give my modifications back to the author so everyone can benefit.
Look at it this way - I've already done the work on the code, so what is the effort of sending a diff to the author by comparison. I might even get a bit of fame out of it.
---
I keep forgetting to ask about this, since it's not a particularly *high* priority item on my agenda -- but....
Has anyone actually had any luck getting an Epson ES-600C flatbed scanner working with SANE?
I own one of these old (circa 1996 or so?) beasts, and although it's a high quality unit - it uses a parallel port. Epson no longer supports it under Windows XP or 2000, but I noticed it shows up on the SANE scanner compatibility list.
Whenever I've fired up SANE in RedHat 7.2 or 7.3 though, it reports it can't detect any usable devices, even when I verify that it's attached to my LPT1 port and is powered up.
(Apparently, Epson actually sold an internal board for a short time that converted the ES-600C to SCSI. Sure wish I had that option board, but it's all but impossible to locate now. I even called the Epson parts supply house, but they said it has long since been discontinued. I hope the people adding the ES-600C to the SANE compat. list weren't just trying a SCSI version instead of the parallel port model?)
Epson is one of the few companies that are really pro-active in Linux support.
I know it for sure as far as printers go: Till is really happy with them, and until recently Epson inkjets were the only devices that produced photo-quality output under Linux.
I got really worried when I saw the title of this article, but I'm convinced that this is just an accident of the "ups, haven't thought of that" type. Guess it's really business as usual - their lawyers are chewing on this now, and some reasonable solution will pop up shortly.
Btw, HP is NOT a willan company either: on the contrary, they put a lot of effort and actually write their own GPL drivers for their printers. Don't know about scanners, but they also wrote Linux drivers (GPL) for their multifunctional devices...
Judging from the way Epson deals with GPL/opensource and Linux I made the decision that my next printer will be an Epson. Even though they made a mistake - they seem to be attempting to correct it and Im sure that there will be a good solution to this shortly. /m
They can always refuse to accept the GPL, in whoich case it is a simple copyright violation. In that case, the worst that can happen is that they have to pay damages.
I don't know whose code they distributed, but the FSF never dues for damages if the violater stop distributing the code. It is unclear how much the damages for distributing gratis code would amount to anyway. Usually the court take the price per copy times number of copies to find the damages (at least here in Denmark), which is cheap when the price is zero.
The FSF probably have other ethical considerations than just promoting free software.
Specifically, I consider it unethical and an abuse to invoke the legal system in a civil dispute, without first doing a fair minded attempt to settle the issue privately.
While there are many aspects of the American society I admire, the fact that it as the only nation in the world feeds more lawyers than programmers is not one of them.
You might be better of asking this question on the sane mailinglist.
Well, don't worry about that. We can get you back before you leave. (Dr. Who)
The 1290 should print edge to edge with Gimp-print. If it can't, please file a bug.
Number one if GPL'ed code was in the public domain, then NO ONE would have a copyright on it, and therefore NO ONE would have to license it.
As for the FUD ware of BSD code not being free, BS! I was a FreeBSD developer for almost 7 years, and was quite happy to have my code used by people for WHATEVER purpose. Is my code still in FreeBSD? (Goes and checks source tree) Yeap sure is! It has not been taken from the public.
The BSD license is ALOT closer to public domain than the GPL, by far! All the BSDL does is make sure that I'm not sued if it's broken and that I get credit somewhere along the way. Thats it.
If YoYoDyne decides they want to code, grabs and copy and make a million on it, oh well. My code is STILL out there for everyone else! I'm not going to take your code just because you used mine. That is my choice.
With the BSDL you have true freedom; take my code and do ANYTHING you want with it. Just don't say you wrote it, don't sue me if it's broken and give me credit. That is freedom.
BWP
The third solution for Epson (that nobody seems to have mentioned) would be to negotiate a private license with the project which released the GPLd code.
This would allow Epson to release their product as "closed source" and would provide funding to the original project.
The GPL (as I understand it) doesn't require that the only licence that the software be available under be the GPL. IIRC, Perl is released under both the GPL and BSD, the choice is up to the user which licence he wants to follow.
McFly777
- - -
"What do people mean when they say the computer went down on them?" -Marilyn Pittman
That would make sense, except that when companies decide to stop supporting a piece of hardware, they also stop MANUFACTURING and SELLING that piece of hardware.
And they don't make money off second-hand sales.. so..
A decompiled binary is far from being the "preferred form for making modifications" required by the GPL--it lacks the original source's comments, variable names, inline function definitions, and clear control flow. And you'd have to port the code back to using libraries' type definitions even to get it to run on another architecture....
If it were astroturfing, the writer would attempt to convey the message that, hey, i'm just your average joe, and here's why i think GPL sucks and M$ rocks.
instead, the text of the posting says:
Because many businesses may not understand the GPL and its potential implications, Microsoft offers this document as a checklist and to provide important background information.
(italics mine.)
in any case, a google search shows this article to be M$'s GPL "FAQ", available at http://www.microsoft.com/korea/business/downloads/ licensing/Gpl_faq.doc
mmm... yeah... You see, we're putting the cover sheets on all TPS reports now before they go out...
They can always refuse to accept the GPL, in whoich case it is a simple copyright violation. In that case, the worst that can happen is that they have to pay damages.
I don't know whose code they distributed, but the FSF never dues for damages if the violater stop distributing the code. It is unclear how much the damages for distributing gratis code would amount to anyway. Usually the court take the price per copy times number of copies to find the damages (at least here in Denmark), which is cheap when the price is zero.
This is a very interesting question. If Epson were to refuse to release their proprietary code that was linked with GPL code, that would void the license grant in the GPL and make it a simple case of copyright violation (reproducing the GPL code without authorization of the copyright holder).
Now, it seems like an open-and-shut case to say that the court would find infringement had taken place -- after all, they were distributing binaries including that GPL code. (Supposing that Epson was intransigent instead of cooperative, and that the FSF took it to court.)
It seems clear that a flagrent GPL violation would result in an injunction against redistribution of the GPL code, but they could still rewrite their code to replace the GPL code with non-GPL code and distribute that later. (As Epson is doing now.)
So, the real question comes down to damages. Since damages are usually tied to economic loss, and the GPL code is (usually) freely available, there's a good argument to be made that there was no economic loss to the owner of the GPL code (since the people who received the infringing copies could have received the same GPL code for free through another means, and the GPL even grants those people a license even from the infringing copy!) -- perhaps the court would find that "actual" damages are therefore zero, no matter how flagrent the GPL violation? If so, perhaps the threat of court action over copyright infringement isn't as stong as it sounds?
Does the GPL really have enough teeth for enforcement if a straight copyright infringement case might not be costly enough to discourage misuse of GPL code? If Microsoft is willing to steal Stak's compression code outright (and they did), which caused actual damages, should they be so worried about the GPL? Or can they just say "we've never intended to apply the GPL to our products" to dodge the "viral" nature of the GPL and simply pay off the occasional copyright infringement case (and rewrite the code) in the few instances where they can be caught red-handed?
Of course, if there are statutory damages for the copyright infringement, those would apply even in the absence of actual damages. I think someone mentioned damages of $100,000 -- but only applicable if the copyright is registered with the Copyright Office? (Then again, even $100,000 is pocket change to a company like Microsoft...)
Disclaimer: I think Epson is doing the Right Thing, and I'm not a lawyer. Take the above with a grain of salt; this is just food for thought...
Deven
"Simple things should be simple, and complex things should be possible." - Alan Kay
I laugh (and "cry") when I see people echo Stallman's nonsensical use of the word proprietary as if GPL'd code isn't proprietary.
Only recently did I realize how completely Stallman has managed to frame the debate by twisting the meaning of words like "proprietary". As you say, the GPL is proprietary, but Stallman has so demonized the word that nobody wants to recognize the truth of the situation.
The GPL may be "less proprietary" than most closed-source licenses in some sense, since anyone can obtain the benefit of GPL code by agreeing to abide by its rules. However, the GPL is far more proprietary than BSD-style licenses, which are barely proprietary at all. The only truly non-proprietary software is public domain software. If someone owns the code (i.e. there's a copyright and a license), then it's proprietary, by definition -- even if anyone can redistribute it under its terms and conditions.
Stallman should be demonizing "closed" software, not "proprietary" software. (A bit late now, of course, he's already trained everyone to turn rabid at the word "proprietary" while pretending that the GPL isn't also proprietary...)
Deven
"Simple things should be simple, and complex things should be possible." - Alan Kay
this is probably just my naive common sense interpretation, everybody with a law degree probably has a different opinion.
/., afterall
yes, this is naive - you should have said:
everybody has a different opinion.
This is
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Since the FSF always negotiate before suing, the issue of being forced to pay damages aren't that relevant. The risks are:
1) It may disrupt the distribution, and
2) the pr loss / embarrasesment of being caught in a copyright violation.
I suspect either of these are more important than damages, even when violating the copyright of proprietary softwere owned by sue-happy companies.
"Public domain" code can be stolen and made proprietary.
By definition, "Public Domain" code is owned by no one! Or by everyone, depends on how you look at it. The only reason I've never release my stuff into the public domain (outside of some of my VERY early code)is that I want the disclaimer that comes with the BSDL and saw no reason to write my own license. Credit is nice, but if someone does not do it, I'm not going to get twisted out of shape.
It's wrong for you to be able to take code which is free and developed by someone else and use it in a closed source application.
This is in YOUR opinion! I use the BSDL for all of my free software, becuase I want the most people to get the most use out of it. If I've written something useful, I want it to be used! If I'm worried about a proprietary use, I just won't release it. Which way I go is my choice, no one elses.
BTW, I was a FreeBSD developer for about 7 years. I started the FreeBSD FAQ, wrote docs, hacked/wrote drivers, applications, libraries and kernel land in FreeBSD. So I'm quite willing to put my money where my mouth is...:)
BWP
So you are.
The ones I hate are the ones the debate either side and have NEVER contributed to a free/open software group. Or wrote something and released it.
IMHO, if you never contributed to the community, you don't have a leg to stand on in this conversation...:)
BWP