SFLC Finds One New GPL Violation Per Day

eldavojohn writes "In July, the Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) leveled the finger at Microsoft for a GPL violation but how often does this actually happen? Sunday, Brad M. Kuhn (tech director at the SFLC) stated in his blog that since August of 2009 he has been finding about one per day. So why is it that we have only covered a handful of these cases in the news? Brad offers sage wisdom; surprisingly, he recommends, 'Don't go public first. Back around late 1999, when I found my first GPL violation from scratch, I wanted to post it to every mailing list I could find and shame that company that failed to respect and cooperate with the software freedom community. I'm glad that I didn't do that, because I've since seen similar actions destroy the lines of communication with violators, and make resolution tougher.' Public shame is evidently not always the best answer. Ars has a few more details and notes that (in accordance with Brad's advice) lawsuits are usually a dead last resort."

Comments

closed up

[runyonave]

hardcore closed source company is alwyas going to have violations. Also it's Microsoft.

Re:closed up

[jellomizer]

open source project have violations too. Using someones patented ideas, calling a library that isn't GNU compatible. The program is performing a function that is illegal such as DRM disabling. That is why you need to be civil with dealing with people for violations. As chances are you have made a mistake and created a violation yourself.

Re:closed up

[tnk1]

Be civil and *document*. If it does come to court, your kind requests (in writing) to desist, as well as your flexibility in helping them identify and correct their violation will help make the case that you have taken the needed steps to protect your property without being an asshole. Their response, or lack thereof, will then be a building block in your case should it come to that.

Remember, civil court is usually just a judge and that judge may react somewhat differently if it is clear you are a jerk. While it is true that they may have to rule in your favor even if you are a jerk, they are unlikely to make it easy on you. There are many things judges can to to move things along that are at their discretion.

Treat every communication for violation as it it was going to be entered into evidence, but remember, court costs money and (more importantly) time. You are much better off if you are getting violators to comply without taking it to that level.

Re:closed up

[PitaBred]

To be fair, I would say that most people working in open-source software think that patents on ANY software are bullshit. They simply ignore them. Patents on software are immoral, as is locking up your source code, so both are eschewed by most free software developers. Just because it's illegal doesn't mean it's wrong, and just because it's wrong doesn't mean that it's illegal.

Re:closed up

[Stormwatch]

The program is performing a function that is illegal such as DRM disabling.

Yes, and the problem is...?

Re:closed up

[NervousWreck]

This is besides the fact that using the courts as a way to settle intellectual property issues simply creates incentive for more and stricter patent laws as well as being just plain wrong. It's always better to come to an agreement civilly.

Re:closed up

[jim_v2000]

Who can sue over a GPL violation? Doesn't it have to be the author of the code?

Re:closed up

[imp]

I've been involved in an open source project (FreeBSD) for a long time. There have been a number of complaints about GPL violations in the past. These complaints are usually made in private. That helps a lot. Often times the compaints are wrong (The GPL code that was alleged to have been taken and improperly included in FreeBSD turned out to have been taken from BSD 4.4lite and incorporated into the GPL code was the worst example). There have also been cases where the same code appeared in drivers in multiple places. Again, that wasn't a GPL violation because both places took the code from a common data sheet. Sometimes supposed violations are cleaned up out of an abundance of caution: it isn't clear the code is improperly included, but the code in question is easy to rewrite and/or icky to start with.

There are also times where GPL code is improperly imported code from BSD as well. Even when these are found it isn't always worth it to complain. Sometimes the gain from complaining is so small that it is easier to just let the folks use the code and not worry too much about it. Sometimes having the code out there and improperly licensed is better than getting it removed from the code base.

In general, I've found that most people that aren't lawyers don't know the law or the provenance of the code very well. By complaining in private, you get a chance to learn a bit about both. You also give people a chance to make it right. With large open source projects, the chances for accidental mistakes are high. The projects are generally keen to avoid the mistakes in the first place, and even keener on making sure that they get ironed out after the facts. Turns out most companies have a similar view and will do the right thing when asked (but sometimes it takes a little time, which is OK: the GPL never said instantly on demand).

Of course, this begs the question about the validity of the License to use GPL software after a violation has occurred, the scope to which license is lost, how to get it back, etc. GPLv2 is silent on the issue, while GPLv3 gives you one shot to fix it (but that's likely insufficient for large companies that have multiple product lines done by disjoint sets of people all of whom aren't educated on the finer points of incorporating GPL software into their products).

Re:closed up

[Courageous]

Depends on the country. In some countries, attorneys can proxy standing for a violated party without the violated party's consent.

Re:closed up

[cheftw]

You're neglecting the fact that an awful lot of FOSS comes from Europe, where we can disable DRM, ignore software patents, etc.

Whether or not I've violated a software license also has no bearing on whether or not someone else has. Your English and logic make me cry.

Re:closed up

[Carewolf]

Who can sue over a GPL violation? Doesn't it have to be the author of the code?

The GPL gives certain rights to the end-user, so the end-user can sue as well. Besides the author and the user, I believe the FSF can also take the case.

Re:closed up

[cetialphav]

Patents on software are immoral, as is locking up your source code

Software patents (and other forms of stupid patents) are not morality issues. It is just stupid policy to allow dumb patents. It does not further innovation and in fact just wastes people's time and energy. There are plenty of ways to argue against these bad patents, but claiming they are immoral is a stretch and just causes people to dismiss the issue.

The same can be said of deciding whether to release the source code to a program or not. If I write a piece of software, what I do with it is my business. If I want to hide the source code, that is up to me and I am not immoral by doing so. I might be stupid or short sighted or naive, but I am not immoral.

Morality is not just a question of whether you like something or not. I think buying lottery tickets is dumb, but not immoral.

Re:closed up

[JoeBuck]

Under GPLv2, if you violate the terms, you lose the license, meaning that you can no longer copy or modify the work at all, and there is nothing in the GPL (v2) itself to get the license back. However, the copyright holder can forgive the violation and reinstate the license.

Likewise, under GPLv3 the copyright holder can give you additional shots to get the license back.

It's important to remember that the copyright holder's powers go beyond the terms. This does create problems for projects with hundreds of copyright owners, like Linux: if you violate the copyright, you apparently need the forgiveness of every Linux copyright owner, or, in the case of the dead contributors, their heirs, or you can never distribute a Linux kernel again (I suppose you could try to make a cut-down kernel without the contributions of the more unforgiving developers). Some might see this as a feature rather than a bug, though.

GPL code can import BSD code; it's only improper if the copyright notices are stripped off (which has happened, so you're right about that).

Re:closed up

[IntlHarvester]

"It's OK to violate the GPL because ..."

The GPL has a patent clause because the intent was to build an ecosystem of patent-free (or freely redistributable) software. Software patents suck, but simply ignoring them just pushes the problem farther down the line.

The result is a bunch of pseudo-free software that can only be legally distributed in some vaguely unspecified countries in "Europe" where software patents aren't enforced. And that causes problems for end users and distros because it's not exactly clear which OSS is intentionally violating someone's patent (beyond the obvious sound/video stuff).

Re:closed up

[amorsen]

The GPL gives rights to the end-user, but that doesn't give the end-user any standing to sue. Unfortunate perhaps, but that's the law. The same goes for the FSF.

Re:closed up

[mvdwege]

Erm, no?

As an end-user, I have the right to request source. If my distributor refuses, I definitely have standing to sue.

Mart

Re:closed up

[RLaager]

[citation needed]

Re:closed up

[Toonol]

They can sue if they've been damaged. There's less opportunity for an end-user to get damaged; they aren't damaged by the infractor's copyright violation. They could be damaged, for instance, if they needed to make modification to the source, but the vendor wouldn't release it.

Re:closed up

[bws111]

If you have an agreement with your distributor that says you get source, you have standing to sue. The GPL is not such an agreement - that agreement is between the copyright holder and the distributor, or the copyright holder and you, but not you and the distributor. You have no standing to sue based on an agreement between him and HIS supplier.

Re:closed up

[amorsen]

The end-user doesn't have an agreement with the vendor. The GPL isn't in force, because the vendor obviously didn't accept it (otherwise the vendor would have complied with it). It's a simple copyright violation, and someone who doesn't own the code can't sue for copyright violation.

Re:closed up

[Anonymous Coward]

AFAIK its pretty much only the US, Australia, Japan and South Korea that considers those patents valid, the rest of the world doesn't. (The vaguely unspecified countries in europe would be all EU members AFAIK)

Ofcourse those countries are important enough to make it a problem, but personally i don't mind just ignoring the patents and simply not distribute anything to those countries, (If anyone wants to distribute software in the US he can hire a lawyer, i'd rather not care though)

Re:closed up

[Requiem18th]

I disagree.

When you steal you prevent someone from using their property, that's why its wrong.

When you patent trivial algorithms you prevent someone from using their rights, if people come up with the same algorithms independently I don't see how can you morally prevent them from using them.

Re:closed up

[SETIGuy]

On the other hand, if you were sold software that violates the GPL, the fact that dollars were transferred would probably give you standing. Whether you could recover anything more than the purchase price would depend upon the jurisdiction.

Similarly, if someone sold you a pirated version of Windows 7, you would have legal recourse to sue the vendor even though you are not the copyright holder.

Re:closed up

[Courageous]

What you say has the ring of truth to me.

Re:closed up

[mvdwege]

No. Whoever distributes binaries to me can only do so under the GPL. So if I don't get source, I get to sue my immediate upstream distributor. It's right there in the compliance guidelines linked to in TFA.

Mart

Re:closed up

[IntlHarvester]

Common myth, but according to wikipedia, rather than "software patents", the EU has "computer-implemented inventions". (Except for the UK which has its own rules) Which really does not affect the FOSS implications one bit.

Re:closed up

[jellomizer]

So you are saying Open Source developers have no respect for the law they disagree with. Because they don't like the rules they can break them. However if someone doesn't like your rules there will be hell to pay.

Patents on software isn't immoral. However I feel the policy is way to open allowing many stupid obvious patents that any developer will come up with when faced with that problem. But there are some Technology that can be done with software that really is truly ingenious and took the designers many years and a lot of money. After spending all that time and money do you really want someone to just take their ideas and push it out without compensating them for their hard work. This isn't about greed, this is about getting your reward for your risk. If it is only risk and the only reward is perhaps a tiny footnote in an academic journal. Will you really work hard for these new ideas? You need to remember a lot of this work is a lot of work that is no fun boring and a lot of frustration, they should be allowed to have a good first mover advantage with their ideas they worked so hard to create.

Locking up your source code isn't immoral. For one it is just freaking computer instructions, which will probably won't work at all in 20 years, in the grand scheme of things open source code isn't really that big of a deal, with the exceptions of some of the big projects Apache and Linux come to mind. However for the most part the fact that it is open or closed source is no real big deal, because the reason people get software is to solve a problem they have, if there is none available to solve their problem then they make it themselves. For most companies if they will have to do major changes to an Open Source project to make it work they might as well make it from scratch sure it may cost a little more but they have the rights to their effort and investment. Secondly life is a competition (a sad but true face of life) there is a balance on what you should share and what you should keep private. If you make you code closed you can always open it later, if you make your code open you can never close it, so logically you should keep you code closed unless you have a compelling reason to open it.

Re:closed up

[bws111]

No such thing is in the compliance guidelines, and if it was, it would be wrong. If you get some GPL code from someone, and they pass along the license that says you get source, you may be able to sue them on the grounds that they didn't provide what they said they would. But that would just fall under normal business transaction law. The court may decide to compel them to give you the source, or they may simply tell them to refund your money (and if there was no money, you really have no standing to sue, as you have not been harmed at all). None of that has anything at all to do with the GPL. If you get some GPL code from someone and they don't pass along the license, you have absolutely no standing to sue, as they have not said you will get the source. The only one who can sue for GPL violations is the copyright holder.

Re:closed up

[Carewolf]

You have a legal right to expect the product you buy is legitimate. The supplier may just admit it is his fault and cancel the deal. So while you can not claim damages besides reversal of the deal, you can force a supplier to admit his GPL-violation or force the court to determine it.

Re:closed up

[mvdwege]

How can that be? The only way to distribute to me is under the GPL. The GPL says I get the source on request. If I don't get the source, I have been damaged, as according to the license I have a right to it. I have standing to sue. It really is that simple.

Now, if my distributor does not tell me the binary is GPL, and I find out later it is, I have at least a cause to sue for having been sold a misrepresented product (this would be fraud, I presume). Whether or not that means I still get to exercise my GPL rights is an open question. I would say yes though; distribution to me would imply that the distributor accepted the terms of the license (otherwise it would be a straight copyright violation). The terms of the license say that anyone with a copy of the binary can ask for source. I have a copy of the binary, so...

Mart

Re:closed up

[bws111]

No, no, and no. The GPL is the license by which the distributor may give you the code (binaries and source). If he does not live up to the license (providing the source), he has no authority to distribute the code at all. You do not have a valid license, because he had no authority to give it to you. If he is distributing, he is guilty of copyright violations. That is between the distributor and the copyright holder, not you.

Now, whether or not you can sue because something was misrepresented to you depends on several things: did you purchase the product because of the misrepresentation? If not, you still have what you thought you were getting, so you were not harmed. If you did purchase the product (or otherwise provide benefit to the distributor) because of the misrepresentation, you may be able to sue him to recover your damages (the purchase price). Only the fact the HE (no-one else) represented to you that you would get the source matters. Every other issue is between the distributor and the copyright holder.

The other day I was in a liquor store, and the owner got a shipment of gift packs which had a bottle of liquor packed with some glasses. He was sitting there opening every pack and separating the glasses and bottle. He then priced the bottles the same as the non-packaged bottles, and put them on the shelf. If you go into his store tomorrow and buy one of those bottles, can you sue him for the glass? Of course not, you thought you were getting a bottle of liquor, you paid for a bottle of liquor, and you got a bottle of liquor. Now, what if when he is boxing up your purchase for you he puts it back in the box that it was originally in? Can you sue him for the glass because now your know that you SHOULD have gotten a glass? No, same reasons as above. What if the bottle was in the box on the shelf, but when you got home you found there was no glass? Now you may be able to sue him, and the outcome may be you get a glass, or maybe you return the liquor and get a refund of the purchase price. But, what if the liquor manufacturer sold it to HIM with the understanding that the boxes were not to be broken up? Well, that is a matter between those two, and you have no stake in that game.

Re:closed up

[mvdwege]

I am still not convinced. However, it's been 17 years since I last took Civil Law, and:

1. I'm Dutch, so law and jurisprudence may not be the same as in your jurisdiction.
2. I'm too bloody lazy to go look up relevant jurisprudence.

Mart

Behind the scenes or not

[impaledsunset]

That's why I use real free and open source licenses, non abominations like the GPL. Making your software "free" and then fighting people using it with legal pressure, eh?

I put everything in the public domain, and I sleep well at night without having nightmares that someone might have violated my license.

Re:Behind the scenes or not

[sakdoctor]

Stallman in a bikini.

Ok, there's your nightmare material for tonight.

Re:Behind the scenes or not

[Anonymous Coward]

I like keeping my software free for everyone for ever. I'm glad you enjoy end users being robbed of their freedom.

Re:Behind the scenes or not

[L4t3r4lu5]

Ever consider that the latest and greatest feature in the latest and greatest, multi-million unit shipping product may be using code you developed?

Ever wanted to maybe boost your pay by jumping to a new company, based on that?

Tough shit. They don't have to say you had anything to do with it. They can just collect the bounty and laugh all the way to the bank. They might have a toast in your name for being a baffoon. Hell, they can even say they developed it themselves, as long as they can read what you've coded. If you're happy with that then fine, amazing, how altruistic of you. I applaud you.

Re:Behind the scenes or not

[dfghjk]

Public domain does keep "my software" free for everyone "for ever". It can't do anything but that.

GPL is about forcing future software to also be free. Not using it doesn't rob anyone of anything.

Re:Behind the scenes or not

[asdf7890]

GPL is about forcing future software to also be free. Not using it doesn't rob anyone of anything.

GPL is about forcing future software that uses on GPLed code to also be free. You don't want to be held by the GPL? Then don't use GPLed code. Is it really that difficult?

Got GPLed code in your project by accident? Then you didn't do due diligence properly. Your fault, not the GPL's fault.

Got GPLed code in your project by no fault of your own (bad contractor, used a library or other source that itself broke GPL, or some such reason)? That does sometimes happen and here you need to discuss it with the owner of the affected code.

Re:Behind the scenes or not

[Anonymous Coward]

Making your software "free" and then fighting people using it with legal pressure, eh?

Given that the GPL puts no restrictions on *use* you obviously don't know what you're talking about.

Re:Behind the scenes or not

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting? Mod this guy "grade A moron".

"That's why I use real free and open source licenses, non abominations like the GPL."

Link to your public domain software please!

I like how you think it's free because someone can disappear it into a giant bigger chunk of technology, then "enhance and expand" your market away, such that your product is impossible to use, but the "real" product, run by some company anywhere, is the only way to do it.

But by all means, if you want to do that, go ahead. You get the satisfaction of having enhanced human knowledge, just like the GPL guys. You also get to provide charity for someone with tons of money, who gets more blowjobs in a month than you get in a decade.

Re:Behind the scenes or not

[shutdown -p now]

May I advance a humble proposal that any post along the lines of "GPL is better than BSDL" or "BSDL is better than GPL" is modded Flamebait and/or Troll on sight? Personally, I'm sick of these endless and pointless fights over nothing, where arguments boil down to who is "more free", with either side persisting in the claim that their definition of "free" is the One and Only True Free.

Re:Behind the scenes or not

[Profane MuthaFucka]

This will help you visualize:

http://www.keepaustinweird.com/images/leslie.jpg

Re:Behind the scenes or not

[jim_v2000]

Meh, GPL does not qualify as "free" to me. There are strings attached that do not allow you to do anything you like with the code. If someone wants to use my code in a closed source project, I really don't care. My code is still out there for others to use.

Re:Behind the scenes or not

[jim_v2000]

>They don't have to say you had anything to do with it. They can just collect the bounty and laugh all the way to the bank. I'd assume that anyone who puts their code in the public domain doesn't really give a crap who does what with it. It's not like your code is somehow magical and no one else could ever have come up with it. At best you're just saving someone else some time.

Re:Behind the scenes or not

[jim_v2000]

If someone doesn't want to make the source for their project available, they can't do that with GPL'd code in the project. I'd call that a restriction.

Re:Behind the scenes or not

[Blakey Rat]

What freedom are end users losing if a company includes public domain code in their software? Please provide realistic and practical examples that prove you've thought about the concept longer than 15 milliseconds.

Re:Behind the scenes or not

[dangitman]

Hell, they can even say they developed it themselves, as long as they can read what you've coded.

Not true, actually. That would be plagiarism, which is entirely different to using someone else's code. It's the difference between quoting someone in a paper you wrote, and claiming that you were the originator of the quote. It falls under the "Moral Rights" clauses of copyright law, and beyond that under almost any ethics system and human decency.

Re:Behind the scenes or not

[Anonymous Coward]

Please elaborate. What does the software do, how is it distributed and under what license is it distributed?

Re:Behind the scenes or not

[Blakey Rat]

Ever consider that the latest and greatest feature in the latest and greatest, multi-million unit shipping product may be using code you developed?

Ever wanted to maybe boost your pay by jumping to a new company, based on that?

Tough shit. They don't have to say you had anything to do with it.

If you cared about that, why would you put your code in the public domain?

Re:Behind the scenes or not

[DeadCatX2]

If it's in the public domain, how is anyone robbed of freedom? Go grab yourself gcc, download the source, and build it yourself.

Or did you post as AC because you know that argument holds no water?

Re:Behind the scenes or not

[Anonymous Coward]

Amen. I'm going to follow this advice from now on. Unless the story title is "Which license is more free?", I'll consider this sort of comments offtopic trolls.

Re:Behind the scenes or not

[Anonymous Coward]

As I understand it, the GPL offers some protections that simple public domain does not. It prevents a rouge developer from taking free code, making a small modification, locking it up, and suing anyone who uses the old (open) version for copyright infringement. It's a contrived example, but it does happen. By the time you prove to the court that the code was initially in the public domain, the damage has already been done.

By "hacking" copyright law, you can make specifically state that developers are free to copy and modify this code, but they are not allowed to lock down new versions in order to prevent the scenario described above. They try to do that, and it becomes much easier to slap them with a counter-suit.

Unfortunately, like many other hacks, it has side effects. Some of these side effects are less than desirable (to say the least). That is why more lenient copyright licenses are used, like the MIT and BSD licenses. They offer more of a compromise between pure PD and the GPL. That is why I, as a web developer, use JavaScript libraries licensed under MIT or BSD licenses; less legal gray area in telling people to just issue a GET command if you want the code.

Re:Behind the scenes or not

[TheRaven64]

You don't want to be held by the GPL? Then don't use GPLed code. Is it really that difficult?

Yes, sometimes. Here's a concrete example. I library that I wrote uses libavcodec. My library is MIT licensed, and someone who uses my library also uses an Apache licensed library (I can't remember it's name; something for parsing MPEG-4 atoms) and released his code under the BSD license. Libavcodec is normally LGPL, so this is fine. Unfortunately, there are half a dozen or so optional files in libavcodec (e.g. some MMX optimisations) that are GPL'd. Some distributions include these in their binary versions. They then can't distribute this application as well without violating the GPL (because the Apache license is not compatible with GPLv2).

The GPL'd files are not included in the build of libavcodec on my machine, nor on the machine of the person who wrote the application using my library, but his code can't be shipped with Debian because the person who maintains an upstream package chose to incorporate some GPL'd code into their stock build of a library.

Re:Behind the scenes or not

[TheRaven64]

It falls under the "Moral Rights" clauses of copyright law

Note that, while moral rights are quite well-protected in the EU, US Federal copyright law does not recognise the concept. In some states there is quite broad protection, for example in California and in others, such as New York, it only pertains to certain forms of copyright works.

Re:Behind the scenes or not

[Anonymous Coward]

The GPL is about keeping the application free, so users have the freedom to use an app however they want, without being constrained by the original maker.

BSD, Public domain etc. is about keeping the code free, so developers... see above.

Those are two goals that are not compatible. Surprisingly, it seems many people still don't get this.

But obviously, since there are more users than developers, GPL > BSD.

Re:Behind the scenes or not

[sirsnork]

Surely you would suggest they grab a public domain compiler given your stance on the GPL?

Re:Behind the scenes or not

[WNight]

They lose the freedom to tinker with what would have been open, whatever it was that the company theoretically closed.

If that's the component they're struggling to fix it could be all-important.

I found a minor bug in Rubygems the other day simply by reading the source. If it wasn't available I'd still be wondering what was supposed to happen and tweaking my code trying to make it work.

Solitaire doesn't run better just because it's open sourced so many users might not even notice, but the ones who poke around or fix anything would. It's the difference between a usable machine and one completely covered into anti-tampering epoxy.

Re:Behind the scenes or not

[WNight]

Imagine FTP for instance. It's available, open, and people use it. So someone like MS implements FTP, but closes the source.

Even if they did go and get FTP source and compile it, it wouldn't work without a ton of tweaking, so they're out the ability to tweak their OS.

Oh sure, the people who are already uber-coders don't lose. But the users who might have been coders had they had more source available to look at, they lose. As does everyone they could have helped. Not any source helps here, just the source to what they run day-to-day.

We have cool cars because automotive engineers were able to play around in their cars and invent new things. Ditto software, but only as long as computers aren't locked-down black-boxes.

I learned to program by reading source that shipped on the system disk of my first computer and you ask how users are hurt by not having source...

Re:Behind the scenes or not

[Blakey Rat]

They lose the freedom to tinker with what would have been open, whatever it was that the company theoretically closed.

So you think that if a company uses a public domain component, it's *no longer* in the public domain? Or what are you saying here-- it makes no sense to me. How can a company "close" something that's already been put into the public domain?

If that's the component they're struggling to fix it could be all-important.

If it's a large product, and the one component that's busted is in the public domain, that would make it the *easiest* part to fix, no?

I found a minor bug in Rubygems the other day simply by reading the source. If it wasn't available I'd still be wondering what was supposed to happen and tweaking my code trying to make it work.

[Insert "great story, bro" image macro.]

Solitaire doesn't run better just because it's open sourced so many users might not even notice, but the ones who poke around or fix anything would. It's the difference between a usable machine and one completely covered into anti-tampering epoxy.

Huh?

From my perspective, proprietary machines are by far the most usable since (by and large, and this is slowly changing) open source coders don't give half-a-whit about usability issues.

Re:Behind the scenes or not

[Xtifr]

Seconded here. I've been listening to the "debates" for years and years and haven't heard anything new from either side in so long I can't remember. Lets just short-circuit the whole thing here: BSD fans want to legalize slavery and murder, and GPL fans want to set up communist dictatorships and destroy the world's economy. As long as someone can "prove" that I'm evil no matter which one I support, I figure I might as well go whole-hog and be totally evil by supporting both, each in their own place. Ia! Ia! Cthulhu fhtagn! :)

Re:Behind the scenes or not

[WNight]

But if the source isn't visible they aren't claiming your source is theirs, just that the product is theirs. Microsoft claims Windows is theirs despite the theoretical heritage of the FTP client, for example.

Re:Behind the scenes or not

[WNight]

Wah. And if someone wants to make a project with Microsoft code instead of GPLed code - oh yeah, they can't because MS code isn't even visible, let alone available.

Besides, why would we care if they want to use free software but are unwilling to extend that benefit to others? That's the very definition of a complete fucking asshole. At that, let them pay for it.

Why do people (like you) keep posting these "But, then they can't horde the source" things as if giving assholes the ability to close source wasn't one of the things the GPL was invented to prevent.

Re:Behind the scenes or not

[Anonymous Coward]

How does the GPL do that? It is just a software license, not magic. There is nothing in the GPL (or any other license) which prevents someone from making a false claim of ownership. All using GPL'ed code does (to you, as a developer using GPL'ed code) is open you to endless headaches. Unless you want your code publicly available (even if you are just developing an in-house application), stay away.

Re:Behind the scenes or not

[Rhacman]

I'm not sure I understand how the GPL protects against this scenario. As the malicious developer I can strip the license off the GPL'd code, say that I wrote it first, and be back in the same courtroom scenario you mentioned.

Re:Behind the scenes or not

[Carewolf]

GPL is about forcing future software that uses on GPLed code to also be free. You don't want to be held by the GPL? Then don't use GPLed code. Is it really that difficult?

Non-sense. Anyone can use GPLed code, regardless of what they want to do with it.

If you don't want to be tied by the GPL, then don't modify and distribute it. Now that should be really easy to avoid for anyone who is not evil.

Re:Behind the scenes or not

[MobyDisk]

If you don't want to be tied by the GPL, then don't modify and distribute it.

I think you mean "don't link to it and distribute it."

Re:Behind the scenes or not

[dangitman]

But if the source isn't visible they aren't claiming your source is theirs, just that the product is theirs. Microsoft claims Windows is theirs despite the theoretical heritage of the FTP client, for example.

So, how is licensing under the GPL going to stop dishonest pricks from being dishonest pricks? Douchey people are going to do that anyway, regardless of what license you choose (if any). But the point is that most humans regard plagiarism as a much more serious offense than mere copyright infringement. Most people see copying something to use for yourself as a more-or-less acceptable desire. But lying and claiming credit for something that somebody else did, is a pretty serious sin.

Re:Behind the scenes or not

[spirit of reason]

It's really a silly argument. The BSD license does have fewer restrictions, but that doesn't make it better than the other. I think people need to understand that the two licenses have different goals in mind, and developers need to respect the wishes of the rights holder. Likewise, developers should take care in what license they use.

My guess is that the BSD license's intent was to simply give credit where credit was due and to allow researchers to develop code for anyone to use, in proprietary or open source projects, with limited liability. This is a good license to choose if you want to give your code away and only want recognition.

The GPL's intent should be obvious to everyone here: The FSF is after a system entirely composed of open source software, and the GPL is one of their tools to achieve it. If you do not want to be a part of this community, do not license your software as GPL and do not expect to be able to use someone else's GPL code (in your own code). If you don't like it, tough--you may as well be complaining to a car salesman about your car not being free.

But if you hate the GPL and FSF, you might not want to use the BSD license. They can use your code too. ;)

Re:Behind the scenes or not

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't code under Apache, BSD, and MIT licenses be used in GPL applications as long as the attribution clause is intact? I thought all three of those could even be closed as long as the attribution clause is intact. I agree that when including the GPL'ed part of libavcodec, the entire production must be GPL'ed. I just thought that these licenses allowed for that.

Re:Behind the scenes or not

[Rhacman]

I tend to agree and I think that there is a place for both GPL and no strings attached code. The intent of the GPL is to encourage other developers to contribute to the open source community without furthering the ends of closed-source commercial or other proprietary endeavors. The problem stems from people not realising that the GPL comes with an agenda attached. Personally I prefer the MIT (X11) licence both for code I use and code I write. My aim would be to know that I produced something that helped someone out. The GPL aim is to encourage people to release source code they otherwise may not have and to give people alternatives to closed source software. I think both aims are admirable but distinct from one another.

Re:Behind the scenes or not

[Rennt]

You may choose to define "free" however you like (this is an acknowledged problem with the term), however when the context is free software, the Free Software Definition is fairly well established.

• run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0)
• study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1)
• redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2)
• improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3)

You are, of course, also free NOT to release your own work under the GPL. Meanwhile, imposing your sense of freedom on others reduces their freedoms no matter which license you choose.

Now you did not actually reveal what your ideal "free" licence is, but I will share with you Rennt's Law: "The probability that anyone arguing that the GPL is not "free" is really just pissed that BSD is not as popular is exactly 1".

Re:Behind the scenes or not

[Carrot007]

No sure which side you are arguing for there.

>Users are hurt by not having source?

Yes indeed they are.

Users are also hurt by having GPL source.

The GPL irks me a little (though not much) because i want the source because someone wants me to have it, not they are forced to.

Being nice because you have to is not being nice.

Re:Behind the scenes or not

[Anonymous Coward]

That is almost an insightful comment. What really hurts are the brainless zombies that say someone takes my code and imply that by some magic I don't have it anymore. You almost make a point with the "enhance and expand" statement. But next time wrap it in less shit.

And there are always things like OpenSSH and OpenSSL that strongly indicate that the "enhance and expand" isn't that easy when you compete with free.

As a side note the abuse of the word freedom really makes me sick. The use in this context is as justified as calling someone who pees on a wall a sex offender. It marginalizes the real victims.

Re:Behind the scenes or not

[petrus4]

It's sadly predictable that the parent was modded -1, Troll. It should have rightfully been modded +1, Insightful.

Public domain is the most morally desirable way to license code, in truth; but that is, of course, why virtually no one does it.

Re:Behind the scenes or not

[petrus4]

But if you hate the GPL and FSF, you might not want to use the BSD license. They can use your code too. ;)

Add a fourth clause.

"While re-licensing is, in every other case, entirely permissible, (including proprietary closed-source licenses) re-issuing code governed by this license, in whole or in part, in source or binary form, including derivative works, under any license issued by the Free Software Foundation, is expressly prohibited."

Re:Behind the scenes or not

[Anonymous Coward]

GPL has some errors regarding system compatibility .
CCNP

Re:Behind the scenes or not

[bws111]

Not as cut-and-dried as you might think. First, it is not just modifying that is a problem, it is linking with. Here is a real example. My company developed a fairly large system for internal use, which linked to some GPL components. This system contains some trade secrets. All perfectly legal under the GPL, and not evil. Several years go by, and the company decides to contract out some work. This contracted work means the contractor needs a copy of this software: extremely big problem. Because of the GPL'ed code, we must provide source to the software, including the trade secrets. Furthermore, unlike normal business deals where we have confidentiality agreements with contractors, we can't stop them from releasing the source code. This resulted in two things: a delay in the project while the software was recoded to remove all GPL components, and a new company rule saying no GPL code, period.

Re:Behind the scenes or not

[TheRaven64]

BSD and MIT, yes. Apache, no. The GPLv3 has a specific exemption for the clauses in the Apache license that are not compatible with the GPLv2. You can not use GPLv2 code and Apache Licensed code in the same project.

Re:Behind the scenes or not

[jim_v2000]

Hate to ruin Rennt's Law for you, but I have never used BSD nor am I familiar with any licensing associated with it.

Re:Behind the scenes or not

[jim_v2000]

Because I don't give two shits if someone closes or opens their source code. There's nothing magical about someone's source code that can't be reproduced by someone else.

Re:Behind the scenes or not

[Anonymous Coward]

Can I use GNU bison to generate a parser?

Yes I can, now.

Why?

Because they added an exception. Prior to that exception the answer was: No, the output of GNU bison is derivative work, because it links to yyparse. If you use that output you are bound to the GPL.

Re:Behind the scenes or not

[dbc]

Indeed. People should chose thier license they way they choose a screwdriver, not they way they choose a religion. GPL serves some goals better, BSD servers other goals better. Clarify your goals, and choose the license that best serves them.

Re:Behind the scenes or not

[Rennt]

Really? Damn. It is pretty fresh TBH, might need some refinement - probability of .95 maybe. I'll count the posts in this discussion but am on a phone right now.
Anyway you should look into BSD. It really is very good and "free" as in "I don't give a fuck what you do with the code", you'll probably like it. Just do us a favour and drop the GPL baiting.

Re:Behind the scenes or not

[Chris Burke]

BSD fans want to legalize slavery and murder, and GPL fans want to set up communist dictatorships and destroy the world's economy.

Yeah, well my communist dictatorship would have slavery and murder. Also blackjack and hookers.

Re:Behind the scenes or not

[DeadCatX2]

What stance?

I said that code in the public domain can't be locked away by someone who then puts it in their closed-source system. I said absolutely nothing about the merits or flaws of the GPL.

Here, you can have your words back now, they don't fit in my mouth very well.

Re:Behind the scenes or not

[DeadCatX2]

No one is stopping you from playing with the code. If you fork an open-source project and close that source, the original still exists. If the closed one gets improvements that make the open one look quaint, certainly there are more than enough uber-coders to reverse engineer the changes and add them back into the public domain.

I am certain you could have learned to program by reading a different set of source code had the one that you read not been available. Certainly there will always be open-source programs, public domain or not.

But forcing all derivative works to be open is no better than forcing all derivative works to be closed. If I am building a product for my company to sell, I have to avoid GPL code like it was HIV positive. That can hurt the user, by prolonging or altogether preventing a useful application from coming into existence. Seriously, do most users care more if A) the program works or B) if the source is open?

Re:Behind the scenes or not

[DMiax]

If I promise to license all my future code GPLv3 will you remove this image from my head, please?

Re:Behind the scenes or not

[WNight]

Being nice because you have to is not being nice.

I care? Am I your mom?

At some small cost to the jerks and lazy the code (and other code) is available to more users, including me.

And you *only* lose the ability to call the code your own and close it away.

Seems to me all your users lose the ability to read the source code for the applications they use...

Re:Behind the scenes or not

[WNight]

But forcing all derivative works to be open is no better than forcing all derivative works to be closed.

In your morality, maybe. But in the real world, forcing source to be open helps users far more than hurts them.

No one is stopping you from playing with the code. If you fork an open-source project and close that source, the original still exists.

Why do all you types say this, as if it isn't clear?

"What? No?! When someone uses my source my copy doesn't go away? Thanks Mister, I never knew that!"

Yes, but it doesn't acquire new features on its own, just sitting there.

If I am building a product for my company to sell, I have to avoid GPL code like it was HIV positive. That can hurt the user ...

Yeah, because nobody ever built a product around an open product before.

Sure, it doesn't fit all business models but neither does paying for a $10k library.

Seriously, do most users care more if A) the program works or B) if the source is open?

Seriously, do most drivers care more about A) The low-resistance features of their car's fuel-feedback wiring, or B) The specific wire-weave pattern in their radial tires? Quick!

No, seriously, is that program more likely to trap users' data in a proprietary mess if the source is open or closed?

What you want, and that you don't feel your freedom to close code is being respected, is clear. But I and other GPL users just don't care. Or, if we do, we care to thwart you more than help you, because you always consider yourselves and never your users.

I am certain you could have learned to program by reading a different set of source code had the one that you read not been available.

Yes, but it wouldn't have been as nice and convenient. If a user of your program was curious as to how it worked they wouldn't be able to. Not very helpful.

Re:Behind the scenes or not

[Carewolf]

So what is the hard part? You shouldn't have used GPL code in the first place if you are not willing to share your derived products. Besides if you hire the contractors as temps they are part of your company and you would still be protected by the internal-use clause.

Re:Behind the scenes or not

[Carewolf]

Linking is only a problem if your product is derived from the GPL code. If you link to it and never use it, there is no problem. If you dynamically load and link to a GPL plugin, you may be derived, but if your product works perfectly well without that plugin, and if you don't even ship that plugin yourself, then your product of course can not be logically be derived.

I admit that determining what is a derived product is hard, and the easiest rule is just refering to linking, but it is not quite that simple though.

Re:Behind the scenes or not

[SharpFang]

Currently, I'm working on a big commercial embedded project which is based on Linux.

Most of it will remain proprietary and closed source, parts will be licensed subsystems that aren't only proprietary, they cost arm and leg, took years to write and there's no snowflake's chance in hell they would ever go GPL. And since our system will depend on them, it can't go GPL. But parts will have to be released. Fixed broken CAN kernel module. Changes to Busybox on top of which this is running. A short and sweet kernel module that does RT calls and realtime I/O to selected thread, replacing the huge ADEOS RT kernel. These will have to be released in compliance with GPL and we are making no fuss about it.

Re:Behind the scenes or not

[SharpFang]

The hard part is that as a start-up they used a cheap and available system that allowed them to get going ASAP. They saved the months of development costs early, when these costs meant to be or not to be.

GPL is for corporations like the dark side of the power, a tempting, easy and available, but extremely corrupting.

Re:Behind the scenes or not

[Anonymous Coward]

It's only natural to be pissed off that well meaning individuals are buying into the FSF propaganda and releasing proprietary GPL code that cannot be freely shared and enhanced by other well meaning individuals.
Once a project is GPL-contaminated it is Game Over.
Even the GNUtards are being bitten by their own stupidity. The Linux kernel cannot be linked to GPLv3 code, hahaha, fuck you Stallman, and fuck you dolphins!

Re:Behind the scenes or not

[DeadCatX2]

But in the real world, forcing source to be open helps users far more than hurts them.

In "the real world", more people use closed-source programs than open-source programs. This is slowly starting to change, but so long as you're obsessed with "the real world", you can't ignore this fact. There would be a lot less software written if you were forced to share your source code, and I totally fail to see how less software helps users in any way.

Why do all you types say this, as if it isn't clear?

Because "all you types" seem to be obsessed with this complete fallacy that someone will grab the open-source, close it, and then try to prevent you from using the open source version. That's just a fantasy that you use to justify your belief that closed source is evil.

In reality, we have no problem with keeping open source open. We just want to keep our source closed, so that competitors cannot bear the fruits of our labor. This is why the LGPL or MIT or BSD license are so much more useful for end users than the GPL; the code is still open for those users who care, and commercial entities can use the code to satisfy the demands of their customers, and everyone wins.

Yeah, because nobody ever built a product around an open product before.

I said if I wanted to build a product for my company. Did I say anything about anyone else? Please, take your words back out of my mouth, they don't fit.

Or, if we do, we care to thwart you more than help you, because you always consider yourselves and never your users.

All you care about is getting to use everyone else's hard-earned work for free. Why are you so greedy that you would demand my code? I do not demand or nor do I take it from you without your permission, I only use what is offered, just as Dijkstra offered his wisdom to the world without forcing everyone to publish their code when they use his algorithm.

You don't care about feeding the families of those programmers who are striving to make a product for a market, nor do you care for their users for whom such software would not exist without financial incentives.

Re:Behind the scenes or not

[WNight]

You don't care about feeding the families of those programmers who are striving to make a product for a market

And you don't care about "the children", the endangered California Condor, or starving fans of Oscar Wilde.

What? You never claimed to?

Huh, funny that.

nor do you care for their users for whom such software would not exist without financial incentives.

I dislike the idea of people who don't share tools. Why would I like companies that are like that?

If there's a market it'll get filled.

There would be a lot less software written if you were forced to share your source code, and I totally fail to see how less software helps users in any way.

Totally specious. If everyone were forced to use my code despite the GPL it would be because my code was so amazing that the benefits outweighed the obligations. It's like complaining about the Quake4 engine being pricey.

In "the real world", more people use closed-source programs than open-source programs.

Exactly. They're stuck on closed systems, with app-stores that offer nothing but more closed software. Nobody pays to register freeware for sale so most people never even see it as an option.

Because "all you types" seem to be obsessed with this complete fallacy that someone will grab the open-source, close it, and then try to prevent you from using the open source version. That's just a fantasy

Dunno, we types see GPLed software, given to anyone who'll pass on their derivative code, as being as free as it ever needs to be.

Then comes along one of you, those for whom "share" is too strict a rule.

So, no I don't think you're a fantasy. But I can't understand the greed that is required to demand that not only do I give you the source, but that I let you keep derivative works to yourself.

If you're going to hoard it to yourself, make it yourself.

that you use to justify your belief that closed source is evil.

I'd have to believe in a god.

I'm fine with closed source though, but go write it yourself.

I said if I wanted to build a product for my company.

Like anyone cares about your specific company. You're anti-GPL so of course you work somewhere that shares your feelings.

All I'm saying is that my hypothetical codebase can be monetized by many different companies already. That you've made business decisions which preclude yours is not really a big deal.

All you care about is getting to use everyone else's hard-earned work for free.

Not for free! As the license fee for one hypothetical GPL library.

And I don't just want to use it, I want the source, and I want others to have it too so that I don't have to fix as many bugs in it if I do use it.

Why are you so greedy that you would demand my code? I do not demand or nor do I take it from you without your permission, I only use what is offered

No, you demand more than is offered.

I offered a trade, my code for yours, with continuezees.

I'm fine with you not accepting the GPL. No demands. Keep and use the software, learn from the code, give it out to others even, no hard feelings.

This is why the LGPL or MIT or BSD license are so much more useful for end users than the GPL; the code is still open for those users who care, and commercial entities can use the code to satisfy the demands of their customers, and everyone wins.

Yeah, that's why you can patch your own Windows 7 install by applying a fix from your security vendor (or yourself) and recompiling.

Looking at old BSD code isn't going to help a modern MS user, primarily because they can't change the source and test it, so I disagree.

When you look at how Microsoft has maneuvered the users and industry I

Re:Behind the scenes or not

[True Grit]

but I have never used BSD nor am I familiar with any licensing associated with it.

You probably *have* used BSD-licensed code, you just don't know that you did. BSD-licensed code is 'more free' in that it can even find itself incorporated into proprietary products whose users never know about it. Some see this particular aspect of being 'more free' as a good thing, but others don't, hence the existence & popularity of the GPL.

Pick whichever you prefer; choice is good.

Re:Behind the scenes or not

[True Grit]

So, how is licensing under the GPL going to stop dishonest pricks from being dishonest pricks?

It won't, for the same reason that a law can't stop a law-breaker. A law (or a software license) is just words on paper.

Note however, that in the GP's example of the legacy of 'weakly' licensed open source code in MS's closed-source Windows, MS wasn't being dishonest. The license of the code *allowed* them to do what they did. They could not legally do the same with GPL code however.

But the point is that most humans regard plagiarism as a much more serious offense than mere copyright infringement.

My gut says that most humans don't even understand the legal distinctions between those 2 things...

But lying and claiming credit for something that somebody else did, is a pretty serious sin.

In most parts of the world, 'a serious sin' is not the same thing as 'a serious crime' (depends on the actual 'sin' of course). Indeed, in some places, for some 'sins', they aren't even *illegal*.

I understand the point you're after, and in a saner world, morality would matter more than it does, but alas we don't live in a sane world, not by a long shot. In our case, what only matters is the legality of the act, and what is the punishment if said act was not legal. People willing to break the law are often far beyond concern over sinful behavior: the only thing they fear is a 'big stick'.

Lets be civilized people.

[jellomizer]

Oddly enough most companies even the Evil Microsoft will much rather fix the problem without having to fight it legally, and resolve the problem civilly. When you pre-poster aggressive towards your opponent they will do the same. And if you are Not for Profit organization and you opponent is a big multi-national company, you are going to be in for a big fight where if you were just to be polite and civil about it chances are you will get your objectives, they will quietly fix their problems and save face. Most of the time these GPL violations are not done deliberately but the GPL is a strict license and for a big company you will have people putting in things that they didn't even realize was wrong. Or worse say some GPL Code was cut as a segment for a help forum and was used from that. So yes they violated the code, they probably didn't mean too, if you are nice to them they will probably fix it. If you go all out and make yourself aggressive they will be aggressive too, and put you in a case even if you win you loose.

Re:Lets be civilized people.

[tearmeapart]

I find it hard to believe you can post that just a few hours after the "Microsoft Tries To Censor Bing Vulnerability" story was posted ( http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/11/09/2319233/Microsoft-Tries-To-Censor-Bing-Vulnerability ).

IMHO, Microsoft's lawyers (collectively) are faster and better than Microsoft's developers (collectively).

Just from that, I believe your arguments are mostly moot.

Also, Microsoft's legal department and development/maintenance team are two separate entities. Legal will do what it needs to do to protect the company (which is what it is trying to do here) and get more money. Microsoft's developers (whether hired by Microsoft full time or via a contract) will try to avoid boring work, which is why they used the GPL code.

However, I still agree that contacting the person/company/organization/corporation before spreading the news is the right thing to do, but it is not absolutely necessary.
I do not doubt that the lawyers at Microsoft will use the full extent of the law (and even go beyond when it can) to protect Microsoft and themselves, so I would not want to ever (non-anonymously) release a vulnerability.

That being said,
Microsoft:
Please fix the vulnerabilities I sent to you last year, as I am very tempted to spread them or use them. I know your people can sleep knowing a few critical vulnerabilities exist with IIS and Windows, but I sometimes cannot.

Re:Lets be civilized people.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oddly enough most companies even the Evil Microsoft will much rather fix the problem without having to fight it legally, and resolve the problem civilly. When you pre-poster aggressive towards your opponent they will do the same. And if you are Not for Profit organization and you opponent is a big multi-national company, you are going to be in for a big fight where if you were just to be polite and civil about it chances are you will get your objectives, they will quietly fix their problems and save face. Most of the time these GPL violations are not done deliberately but the GPL is a strict license and for a big company you will have people putting in things that they didn't even realize was wrong. Or worse say some GPL Code was cut as a segment for a help forum and was used from that. So yes they violated the code, they probably didn't mean too, if you are nice to them they will probably fix it. If you go all out and make yourself aggressive they will be aggressive too, and put you in a case even if you win you loose.

Considering that MS is a major player in the IP enforcement racket, that's a very charitable attitude to have.

But groups like the BSA in the USA and FACT in the UK exist purely to enforce the likes of MS's EULAs. If you make a mistake with MS's licensing, and get caught by a group that actively looks for mistakes (and MS's licensing rules mean mistakes are easy to make), you will have unforeseen costs coming your way - through either suddenly having to pay for more licences, or defending yourself from being sued. The BSA/FACT exists to 1) detract from the individual companies who could well be fucking over small businesses and individuals (bad for PR), and 2) make the enforcement of their licences more efficient, by pooling the enforcement costs. Any entity that does things like this does not deserve charity.

I say if you are a copyright holder and your GPL code gets violated by a for-profit entity you should be looking to sue for as much as possible, and get the terms of the GPL fully enforced. If MS "accidentally" put some GPL code into Office, well, then Office needs to be opened and the profits so far need to be handed over to the original GPL'd code writer. And Office needs to be taken off the market. MS won't accidentally put GPL code in a product again after that.

I don't know what a court would do if you went in there, fucked over a company who had broken some rule whilst at the same time you are saying that the law is utterly unreasonable, but GPL violations are a good opportunity to publicise how fucked up IP law is.

Re:Lets be civilized people.

[WNight]

That's all bullshit.

You've got the premise the GPL is a strict license and that it's easy to accidently infringe - as if code just teleports into your project.

It's pretty hard to accidentally infringe. You have to go get someone else's code and stick it in your project. If you don't paste any external code into yours, you're 100% safe!

But all copyrighted source is this way. You can't just release something you didn't write, at least without asking permission for it and appeasing the author. The GPL is far less strict, offering you that ability up front and requiring only one thing - that you not close the source.

One thing the GPL is, is a greed detector. The people who bristle about not being able to use GPLed code are greedy useless people. For them hording is so important they can't understand not hording source from their users, but at the same time they get incensed about the 'non-freedom' of the GPL because they see it as preventing their use of the code. It's pretty funny really.

Going to court and going public

[Corporate T00l]

It's not really surprising that going to court and going public are really last resort sort of things. Court is expensive, and most people considering them to be a "roll of the dice". Actually negotiating with your counterparty in a contract dispute is always cheaper and more productive.

Going public, even after going to court, also sours the atmosphere, creating emotional contention that makes an actual agreement less likely. Look at out-of-court settlements with undisclosed terms and no party admitting fault. Once you get out of the public light, you can get people to sit down and discuss and actually come to a mutual agreement since the emotions have been toned down. If you're all fury and anger, you're not really in a position to negotiate someone into a corrective action.

Re:Going to court and going public

[IndustrialComplex]

Actually negotiating with your counterparty in a contract dispute is always cheaper and more productive.

It should be so far from not surprising I'm surprised that it had to be said.

Once you throw down the legal gauntlet, anyone you are dealing with now imagines, in bright red 30' letters, "Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law."

Re:Going to court and going public

[Anonymous Coward]

The truth is that going public is useless with GPL violations because the kind of people who care are completely ineffectual misanthropes who have retreated to insular internet circlejerks in the absence of any real human contact.

Re:Going to court and going public

[WNight]

Yes, because they were living in the corporate dreamland of lawless cooperation until these open-source thugs just started asserting ownership of code.

Sometimes things can be honest mistakes and warning are nice, but other things are obvious and treating them like a mistake just gives the infringing person a victim role to play and by forgiving everything they did doesn't change their future behavior in the slightest.

Imagine shoplifting. You leave a store and they catch up with you and say "Hi, you MIGHT have something of ours, if you return to the store and sort this out we'll drop this." This is appropriate if it looks accidental and they want you to come back in the future, but if they said this to a thief the thief would give this item back and steal another the next day. Only by pursuing the thief vigorously could they prevent more thefts.

In most cases it's pretty hard to call using someone's library without considering licensing an 'honest' mistake, especially in business. These people need to be smacked with the "We're going to court with this unless you call up and grovel by 9am" or they're just going to screw with you.

Honest people don't rip things out of packages in the store and hide them down their leg - honest businesses don't obfuscate which libraries they're using. People who do these things need to be treated like liars until they show otherwise.

Ah yes

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah yes, another one of these stories. Expect to see some references to M$, people defending GPL and people advocating BSD. All in all, everyone will agree that respecting open source licenses is very important. Next thread, something about RIAA, same people demanding their right to download copyrighted music.

Pathetic.

Re:Ah yes

[Anonymous Coward]

Same people? Prove it.

Re:Ah yes

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Ah yes, another one of these stories. Expect to see some references to M$, people defending GPL and people advocating BSD. All in all, everyone will agree that respecting open source licenses is very important. Next thread, something about RIAA, same people demanding their right to download copyrighted music.

Pathetic.

Result of proper GPL usage: More software for the public to use.

Result of copyright abuse: Less content in the public domain.

One is about the world that is, the other is about the world that should be. What's pathetic is the lack of understanding you have of the people you're criticizing.

Re:Ah yes

[stiggle]

Those who don't abide by the GPL are committing copyright abuse - its all in the license :-)

So proper copyright use in both cases gives more to the public good.

Re:Ah yes

[Virak]

You left out 'people trolling about copyright', evidently.

Re:Ah yes

[koiransuklaa]

And then the same people come and expose the hypocrisy of saying two totally opposite things. And then the same people come and ridicule themselves about making stupid assumptions.

Those wacky slashdot users.

Re:Ah yes

[Speare]

Do not conflate the GPL with the public domain. If there is a copyright in force, it is not in the public domain. It is in the public's reach, and if they follow the rules of the license they can use it, but it is not in the public domain. The public domain is the forgotten side of the copyright bargain, that [i]for limited times[/i] the authors can impose rules on the use of their works. By the way, in most countries, one can simply declare that they grant their own works to the public domain, as a gift to mankind, rather than waiting the requisite half-eternity to allow the copyrights to expire.

Re:Ah yes

[petrus4]

Ah yes, another one of these stories. Expect to see some references to M$, people defending GPL and people advocating BSD. All in all, everyone will agree that respecting open source licenses is very important. Next thread, something about RIAA, same people demanding their right to download copyrighted music.

Pathetic.

Truthfully, the only people who care about copyright in either case, are those who are afflicted with scarcity thinking...which is all too frequent, sadly.

Re:Ah yes

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Do not conflate the GPL with the public domain.

For the record, I didn't. ;)

Re:Ah yes

[True Grit]

So proper copyright use in both cases gives more to the public good.

True, but the GP's point wasn't about both involving copyright. Note the part in the GGP's rant, that I've bolded:

Next thread, something about RIAA, same people demanding ...

It is, from my experience at least, not the same people doing both as the GGP implies, because as the GP points out, anyone using *any* software license, not just the GPL, or for that matter, anyone who just knows enough about them to argue over their differences (as we often seem to do here), has already demonstrated more respect for copyright law than somebody who simply thinks that all music should be free for them to download...

Just use a different license

[petrus4]

The simplest ways to avoid potential GPL violation, are:-

a) If you want to use an FSF license at all, use the LGPL version 2. Don't use any version 3 FSF license. Apart from anything else, doing so just makes them feel justified in creating bad licenses. (Which their 3 series are)

b) If you're going to use GPL code at all, make sure it's not something you intend to modify yourself.

c) Use other licenses (BSD, MIT, etc) as much as possible. In terms of non-GPL licensed code for you to use, the BSDs are free for the taking, and with the BSD license, you get to decide how much of your modifications (if any) you release. Their code quality is nearly always better than Linux anywayz.

If you're not using GPL licensed code, there is no way that you can be responsible for GPL violations. GPL advocates used to use this argument rhetorically, because they felt that this would mean that the person in question would have no choice. (the implication being that there was barely any non-GPL code, so they'd have nothing to be able to use)

Call their bluff.

Re:Just use a different license

[Anonymous Coward]

I've avoided even evaluating *GPL software when searching for libraries and such for distribution with a product. Management was fine with me using open source, but I didn't want to deal with the hassle of making sure I was strictly in compliance.

Re:Just use a different license

[tuppe666]

I'm a little surprised by the post. The simplest way to avoid any violation if to abide by the licensing it is under. This does not just apply to GPL but a whole host of licensing of code.

The you post a few licences you can use without giving back! If you are not giving back that points to code under a license that doesn't enforce it being worse.

Now what I found interesting is the lie, that GPL code is not quality code. Its bizarre. CODE QUALITY has nothing to do with the license. The fact that so many companies are prepared to copyright infringe implies the opposite.

If you had made the point that more permissive licences have better code because more companies/individuals will contribute back...but its not a strong argument in a case discussing violations.

But what I find most bizarre is that even though GPL enforces sharing, all those OTHER licenses still want you to share. Thats the point. The code doesn't get better otherwise.

Re:Just use a different license

[arose]

I didn't want to deal with the hassle of making sure I was strictly in compliance.

I suggest you stop using any and all third party code.

Re:Just use a different license

[JoeBuck]

GPLv3 is actually more forgiving than GPLv2 of accidental violations. GPLv2 says that you forfeit the license and you need the copyright holder to reinstate it. GPLv3 provides a mechanism to correct the violation and have your permissions automatically reinstated. If you're producing a product that does DRM, you'll need to avoid GPLv3.

Re:Just use a different license

[petrus4]

The you post a few licences you can use without giving back! If you are not giving back that points to code under a license that doesn't enforce it being worse.

a) Reciprocity paranoia is the sole justification for the GPL's existence.
b) People who actually write code don't have either the time or the mental focus for reciprocity paranoia. They're too busy.

Armchair "advocates," (even including Stallman himself, here) have the time to be obsessive about whether or not other people are, "giving back," because they're not spending their time doing anything more genuinely useful.

The BSD license, as mentioned, does not legally enforce, "giving back." If it's true, as GPL advocates claim, that it is necessary for reciprocity to be legally enforced in order to ensure that it happens at all, can you possibly explain to me why the BSD operating systems are still being developed, and more specifically, what incentive anyone could have to contribute the results of said development work to the development group(s), since they are not legally forced to do so?

The above question is asked rhetorically. The entire stated justification for the existence of the GNU General Public License (as opposed to non-copyleft FOSS licenses) is utterly moronic. The only reason why it is perpetuated by anyone other than Stallman himself, is due to Stallman's effectiveness as a cult leader, and not, in any way, due to the logical validity of the argument.

Re:Just use a different license

[Anonymous Coward]

No he is right. The easiest way to avoid violation is to not touch the product.

Abide to a license has one problem: your interpretation has to match the interpretation of the author. Or if that fails at least match the interpretation of the court. That is not a trivial condition. The countless discussions about the GPL are evidence for that. There are lots of points in the GPL that are not obvious to a lot of people. Like I'd say most people don't know how to properly mix GPL code with BSD code. And there are still countless people who think GPL enforces sharing of code.

Re:Just use a different license

[tuppe666]

Sure no problem. I never said people don't contribute to BSD projects :). In fact those that do contribute often do so under GPL and BSD Licenses.

In fact looking as a BSD/GPL operating system does not exist! In fact a quick look at my everyday OS I see GPL Kernel; GPL tools; BSD(Close enough) Windows; GPL Desktop; GPL Office; Apache Web browser. In fact the GPL parts often include BSD code.

The funny thing is I think BSD/GPL code are the same just one enforces sharing...but the mythical BSD OS is a good example It probably uses a GPL desktop rather the MAC OS X's.

Although the bottom line is of the two Operating Systems your example not mine one under BSD(Used by APPLE a massive company no less) and Linux, which has the largest contributions? No Cocoa for you tonight ;)

Re:Just use a different license

[tuppe666]

Yes absolutely. If you do not wish to contribute back do not use a code under a license where you have to :)

But, BSD etc is about sharing which is why The fuss every so often when Linux uses BSD code and wraps it in GPL code...or my favorite beryl using compiz code.

So yes if you don't want to share use a license that permits it. You are going against the spirit of the license.

...but please everybody knows what the difference between GPL and BSD is.

Re:Just use a different license

[Ash-Fox]

In terms of non-GPL licensed code for you to use, the BSDs are free for the taking, and with the BSD license, you get to decide how much of your modifications (if any) you release. Their code quality is nearly always better than Linux anywayz.

BSD cannot be trusted to be completely 'free' as the person above claims. I have come across numerous BSD licensed sourcecode that has the following clause:

3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software
      must display the following acknowledgement:
      This product includes software developed by Insert company/person/organisation here

I will also add that this clause is incompatible with GPL.

just use some other licencing

[masshuu]

I still don't understand GPL v2 or GPL v3, though i have read each of the licencing things several times.

The most i get from it is "If you distribute the Binderys, you must distribute the source code"

thats why i like MIT or BSD based licences, there short, to the point, and don't have hundreds of loopholes or hidden licencing terms that could cause some large company to rape my ass, though if they want to rape my ass, they will do it no matter what i use, MIT or GPL

Re:just use some other licencing

[Anonymous Coward]

The most i get from it is "If you distribute the Binderys, you must distribute the source code"

That's why I distribute the source code on loose sheets of paper. Binding is just too expensive these days.

Re:just use some other licencing

[Ungrounded Lightning]

The most i get from it is "If you distribute the Binderys, you must distribute the source code"

That's why I distribute the source code on loose sheets of paper. Binding is just too expensive these days.

Not to mention that binding non-LGPL GPLed libraries with your code and then distributing it puts your code under the GPL. So don't glue your listings to a GPLed library book and let somebody else check it out.

Lets be civilized -- Investigate before accussing.

[iYk6]

Don't forget, there might not be a problem in the first place. If you are looking around, and see someone else's GPL code in a proprietary product, make sure you find the original owner and talk to them before you go around shouting at the hill tops how evil the proprietary company is.

It is entirely possible that the code was appropriately licensed by the original owner. Just because something is GPL, does not mean that it can not also be licensed for a specific user, usually for money. Think Quake.

Even if the project itself is not licensed for their use, maybe whoever wrote that part of the project re-licensed their contribution to a proprietary company.

And as for the money?

[h00manist]

And if the company made, or is making, $$$ selling an open-source derived product? Without distributing source? What should be done?

Re:And as for the money?

[sexconker]

Buy the software if you want it.
Don't buy the software if you don't want it.

No one but the most ardent of internet nerds gives a shit about open-source software licensing.

You can bitch and moan all day long, and in the end the most you'll get is a link to the source code of the open source shit they used. Big fucking whoop.

Or do you want your router to come with a printout of the source code for the shit it's running?

They do that to GPL code as well

[MikeRT]

How many people know that GPL software powers their routers? Linksys and others could call the Linux Kernel developers and everyone else whose software powers their consumer devices "baffoons" for letting them get away with it. The GPL doesn't protect you from "exploitation."

If that scenario bothers you so much then don't open source anything.

Re:They do that to GPL code as well

[stiggle]

The GPL protects you only is you use it to defend yourself.
So if they are using GPL code without acknowledging the author & GPL status of the code then they are opening themselves up for a case against them.

How many people know that GPL software powers their HDTV? You'll be suprised how many Digital HDTV these days contain GPL code.

Re:They do that to GPL code as well

[Anonymous Coward]

Linksys switched to VxWorks.

Haduh!

[hunteke]

In U.S. culture at least, we have little notion of how to let the "other side" save face. Saving face, or not 100% embarrassing folks when they've obviously messed up, is critically important in many negotiations, both exactly political, and locally among friends. The old adage "it's not what you say, it's how you say it," still rings true. People aren't stupid, and most would rather not be insinuated as such. People do, however, make mistakes, either semi-intentionally, unknowingly. (Analogous to driving, right? That's why they call crashes "accidents".)

Ridiculing folks gets folks nowhere. In the long run, most would agree that having businesses around and prospering is a good thing. (Let's not get into a debate about size of businesses for now.) A healthy business affords jobs to the local community, a service to those who need it, and acts as a community partner. A dead business does no such thing. A friendly reminder is often more than enough to get someone to clean up there act. I know it sure is for me.

Re:Haduh!

[PitaBred]

Ridicule gets you VERY far. You just need to know when to wave that big stick, and use it after trying other methods, and failing. Public humiliation should most certainly be a tool to get someone to do something. If you're ashamed of doing something, you shouldn't be doing it.

Re:Haduh!

[WNight]

A business is worthless. Like a dream. It's what you do with it that makes it worthwhile. Employing people is good, but the mob employs people and is bad.

If their business has to break laws to make money, how useful is it to the community?

If you think about it, they probably have a negative value. Sure, they're doing X and have customers lined up, but by breaking the law they've got an unfair advantage over legitimate businesses (ones who pay/acknowledge the creators of their library code thereby funding future development). By undermining the creation of legitimate business they're hurting everyone, including their customers who get a substandard (unlicensed therefore of questionable legality, fitness, etc) product.

Perhaps it should be a wakeup to people and businesses that they're aren't anonymous. The village is small enough we're recognizing them for their behavior and that if they want slack they should start being more open and accepting of criticism before it has to get to the accusation stage.

Being dealt with nicely is something you earn (or can lose at any rate). There's no sense being nice to Microsoft because they've gotten where they are with threats and lawsuits. Being nice is a courtesy you extend to those who would extend it to others.

After all, what you say applies if you want the person to like you at the end. MS for example has tried to eliminate Linux and Open Source a few times with dirty tricks. At this point I'd rather cause them grief than play nicely. I imagine most everyone else they've screwed over feels the same.

Re:Haduh!

[True Grit]

Ridiculing folks gets folks nowhere.

Unless of course you're on /. arguing about the finer points of FOSS software licenses, in which case ridicule seems to be the first rhetorical weapon-of-mass-insult that folks around here reach for...

*sigh*

Naming and shaming may not work...

[BigBadBus]

...but it sure is cathartic - have a look at the blog in my sig line!

WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Don't use any version 3 FSF license." Unless you don't like the idea that someone can patent the idea implemented in your code and then sue you for using your code...

"If you're not using GPL licensed code, there is no way that you can be responsible for GPL violations." But if you're using non-GPL licensed code you could be responsible for non-GPL violations. You can also be done for patent violations.

Re:WTF?

[petrus4]

"Don't use any version 3 FSF license." Unless you don't like the idea that someone can patent the idea implemented in your code and then sue you for using your code...

Nobody cares.

"If you're not using GPL licensed code, there is no way that you can be responsible for GPL violations." But if you're using non-GPL licensed code you could be responsible for non-GPL violations. You can also be done for patent violations.

Did I mention that nobody cares?

Re:WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Don't use any version 3 FSF license." Unless you don't like the idea that someone can patent the idea implemented in your code and then sue you for using your code...

They can't do that. Your code is prior art. If they sue you they will lose. I don't see what is different with GPLv3.

"If you're not using GPL licensed code, there is no way that you can be responsible for GPL violations." But if you're using non-GPL licensed code you could be responsible for non-GPL violations. You can also be done for patent violations.

The BSD, MIT and Apache license fit on a single page. There is practically no room for interpretation. The only way to violate them is removing the license or advertising without consent of the people.

Your patent argument really is moot. If another company has a valid claim and a reason to sue they will do. GPLv3 will not safe you from this. What it does is prevent patent agreements like Microsoft-Novel.
This means: you can't make a deal with a holder of a patent that you are allowed to use his patent in GPLv3 code while others are not allowed to do so.

So if you violate some patent the GPLv3 will not safe you. You still have to settle or desist. GPLv3 makes it harder for you to settle, but the positive is when you do everyone will profit from this. We have yet to see that in action though...

Re:WTF?

[WNight]

You're the perfect anti-GPL troll. You act like the GPL is the only, or strictest, license in existence.

If only all code was so available.

And you, conflating GPLed source with Linux. Idiot.

Re:WTF?

[petrus4]

You're the perfect anti-GPL troll. You act like the GPL is the only, or strictest, license in existence.

Version 3 of the GPL is the most restrictive FOSS license in existence.

Here; go and look it up. I'll wait.

Re:WTF?

[Ash-Fox]

Note: I am not the grandfather poster.

Version 3 of the GPL is the most restrictive FOSS license in existence.

Compared to some of Microsoft's Microsoft Shared Source Initiative licenses which enforce that the software remain non-commercial and opensource?

Sorry, I don't buy it.

Re:WTF?

[WNight]

You act like the GPL is the only, or strictest, license in existence.

Version 3 of the GPL is the most restrictive FOSS license in existence.

The most restrictive FOSS license, omg. That's like the meanest carebear.

It still only restricts people who want to close the source. That's a feature.

So what the guy really says ...

[BESTouff]

So what the guy really says is that if they spoke about that Microsoft case aloud, it's because the other, softer ways of resolving the dispute couldn't work ?

So the next logical step is a lawsuit ?

Microsoft cares

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft cares:

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/09/0324247

http://consortiuminfo.org/bulletins/pdf/aug04/trends.pdf

People do care.

law is not law

[Anonymous Coward]

Software law is not natural law.

You can't judge the legality of software without looking at it's details, so painting a brush that GPL/OSS software is absolutely distributable/free is plainly ignorant. I'm sure software having violations is more the norm than the shocker. Unless you have governance and stewardship roles in the maintainance of that s/w (e.g. The Linux Kernel), GPL is meaningless.And 9 out of 10 projects never considered those roles in spirit of agile development and getting the s/w out the door asap

And that's why pointing out a fact (X software is violating GPL) means nothing unless someone enforces it. Something like the GPL is only beneficial if someone enforces it (I'm sure RMS would, actually, disagree...). Considering we have no system of enforcement, aside from just 'suing the other guy', I say GPL is more of a guideline vs. a legal mechanism.

The GPL Needs a Damages Clause

[v(*_*)vvvv]

There is no legal pressure on any company that steals GPL code.

Here is the problem.

1) GPL software is not very profitable.
2) The GPL is only enforceable in civil court.
3) Those who use GPL software aren't the people violators sell to.
4) GPL software lacks civil and legal representation.

Who would feel threatened under these conditions?

To sue, one must prove damages. Record companies use the CD MSRP * copies made formula which is very effective. $0 times anything is zero. And the 2 developers who write code in their free time aren't going to chase anyone no matter how blatant the violation.

So I say GPL needs a damages clause:

"If I do not comply, I agree to pay all associated legal fees and 1 million dollars in damages per copy of proprietary software that I sell which includes any code from this software."

Re:The GPL Needs a Damages Clause

[frogstar_robot]

Damages are for a court to decide. To be sure, EULAs and licenses may contain boilerplate specifying violation penalties but it doesn't necessarily follow that they can be enforced. One of the design goals of the GPL is to be valid in as many jurisdictions as possible. Including a damages cause would weaken that. It may be contrary to it's designers' strategies as well. Both the SFLC and FSF have said that most GPL violations are resolved quietly.

Re:The GPL Needs a Damages Clause

[petrus4]

There is no legal pressure on any company that steals GPL code.

The GPL does have teeth, but as Eben Moglen himself observed, that is not primarily due to the legal system.

GPL violation is primarily punishable not by law, but by the members of the cult themselves.

Violate the GPL, and be public about it, and whether you end up in court or not, you will be issued with death threats. You will be subjected to vigilantism and harassment of all kinds. You will likely be subjected to "hacktivism," involving the types of pranks that Anonymous have been known to engage in.

For GPL violators, the courts are no real threat. The real threat are the proverbial, "GNU generation;" the vast, militant horde of anarchic, Marxist, Eurotrash 14 year olds that Stallman has been able to sink his ideological claws into.

It isn't any lawyer you must fear. It's the nameless, faceless 15 year old Debian user from the Eastern bloc, who can reduce both your home and corporate LAN to smoking ruins, can steal your identity, can have your bank accounts drained or frozen, and can do so both at will and completely invisibly; striking hard, and then melting away back into the anonymous sea of humanity, untraceably.

Damn kids. They're all alike. ;)

Re:The GPL Needs a Damages Clause

[Anonymous Coward]

Showing damages? Easy.

Imagine I write a program that does something great, and puts it under the GPL. Now, imagine that Microsoft (hypothetically) makes my program a part of Windows.

What am I entitled to according to the GPL? The source code to Windows under the GPL. I.e. a worldwide source distribution license. What is the monetary value of that? Well, ask Microsoft. You could probably get it by taking the price certain companies have paid for the source to Windows (Citrix comes to mind), and multiply it by the number of people on the planet.

That's how much Microsoft would ask for a world wide source distribution license for Windows. Thus, according to Microsoft, that is the value of what they were required to give me, but didn't.

If there were - as you claim - "no legal pressure on any company that steals GPL code", Microsoft would be the first to do it. Actually, they aren't scared of a little legal pressure (see Stacker). Yet, they are touching the GPL like they would a hungry Tiger.

This one has teeth. Sharp teeth. And claws.

Copyright infringement can be criminal

[Anonymous Coward]

Copyright infringement can be criminal.

Oh, and where are all these EULA licenses sued in?

That's right: civil court.

It isn't free to you

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't free to you because you didn't write it.

Parasite.

Re:It isn't free to you

[jim_v2000]

Please try to make sense when you post things. It helps us to understand your point.

look harder

[Anonymous Coward]

One a day? They must not be looking very hard

That's a EULA.

[Anonymous Coward]

And remember, EULAs are not enforceable. Slashdot screams this EVERY time APPLE or MS has one. It cuts both ways, Slashdot.

Re:That's a EULA.

[RLaager]

The GPL explicitly says you don't have to agree to it to use the software. It only comes into play when you distribute copies of the software, which is something unambiguously covered by copyright law everywhere. The majority of people here arguing that argue EULAs are invalid are not suggesting that they should be able to *distribute copies* of Mac OS X or Windows.

They're saying you can't have a transaction that looks like a sale in every way, but when you open the box, it says you have to agree to another contract (that you can't negotiate or change) which says that your transaction was not a sale and that you agree to all sorts of draconian conditions. Plus, EULAs often purport to apply in such a way that you have to agree to the agreement before you see it. Imagine you buy a car, but the car's key is inside a box with tape that says, "If you break this tape, you agree to be bound by the agreement within." The agreement inside the box says you didn't actually buy the car, you're just leasing it and thus you're not allowed to figure out how the car works, so you must bring it into the dealership for work. This is what (the majority of, as there are always some crazy folks) the "EULAs are not enforceable" comments are about.

And I can't fuck you up the ass

[Anonymous Coward]

And I can't fuck you up the ass. I'd call that a restriction.

So called "Free country"? Pah! Maxist state, that's what it is, telling me what I can do with an ass I grab hold of and my dick...

How is not using GPL'd code difficult?

[KWTm]

"You don't want to be held by the GPL? Then don't use GPLed code. Is it really that difficult?"

Yes, sometimes. Here's a concrete example. I library that I wrote uses libavcodec. My library is MIT licensed, and someone who uses my library also uses an Apache licensed library (I can't remember it's name; something for parsing MPEG-4 atoms) and released his code under the BSD license. Libavcodec is normally LGPL, so this is fine. Unfortunately, there are half a dozen or so optional files in libavcodec (e.g. some MMX optimisations) that are GPL'd. Some distributions include these in their binary versions. They then can't distribute this application as well without violating the GPL (because the Apache license is not compatible with GPLv2).

No, that doesn't make sense. You're still assuming the same sense of entitlement found in people who protest that they should be able to use GPL'd code without cost.

If someone uses GPL'd code, s/he there is a price to pay. It may be seen as a lot, or a little, but with your benefit comes an obligation. You are not forced to choose that obligation; you can always choose not to use the GPL'd code. But there is equally no responsibility for the creator to let you use the code free of obligation.

Similarly, you get to use libavcodec. Someone decided that it would be licensed under LGPL, which seems to work for you. It looks like other optional files in libavcodec are GPL'd, and apparently you wish they are LGPL or other more permissive license. But there is no responsibility for the creator to let you use those GPL'd optional files.

I think it's a matter of expectation. Just as someone new to FLOSS might have the overoptimistic expectation that Free software means s/he can freeload, you might look at libAVcodec and decide, "Hey, it got good reviews on all the web sites and has all the features I want" and not realize that those optional features are GPL. But that's reality, and you (or others distributing your work) will have to decide between the cost and benefit of the GPL.

Re:How is not using GPL'd code difficult?

[TheRaven64]

You're missing the point. The question was whether it is hard to avoid GPL'd code. I did not use any GPL'd code when writing my library. The person writing an application using it did not use any GPL'd code. The person creating the package for Debian was unable to do so because of the GPL. Now, I'm fine with Debian not carrying this code. I don't use Debian, and there aren't many Debian users whose opinions I care about. I don't lose anything. Only Debian users (and maybe users of a few other systems with similar policies) lose out.

It looks like other optional files in libavcodec are GPL'd, and apparently you wish they are LGPL or other more permissive license.

Simply not including those files in the package build would also work. I don't have any of them enabled in my system. I have no expectations about being able to use GPL'd code. If you'd read and understood my post, you'd have noted that I specifically said that I was not using these files, nor was I distributing them. The problem is not mine, it belongs to downstream distributors who find that the GPL has snuck in via the actions of another package maintainer.

Re:How is not using GPL'd code difficult?

[True Grit]

The problem is not mine,

In other words, *you* didn't have a problem avoiding GPL'd code, which was the GGP's point.

it belongs to downstream distributors who find that the GPL has snuck in via the actions of another package maintainer.

Except that the 'downstream distributor' and the 'package maintainer' in this case are one in the same, the Debian distro and a Debian package maintainer. Your example is not one of GPL'd code mixing with non-GPL'd code by 'accident', your example is merely one of someone at Debian recognizing that *their* distro had a particular problem here and then *avoiding* that outcome... which is precisely what you say is supposed to be hard to avoid.... wait, what?

And if the GPL'd code was only there due to 'the actions of another package maintainer' then how can you honestly describe it as 'sneaking in'? The GPL'd code didn't slither in on its own, it was put there by a human being, for pete's sake. Software, like any other inanimate object, doesn't 'sneak'.

If Debian's inclusion of the GPL'd sub-parts in that LGPL'd lib was unintentional, then its presumably already been fixed, if it was not, then that is their (Debian's) choice. In any event, you haven't shown how *you* were inconvenienced in any way by the GPL, or how *you* found it difficult to avoid GPL'd code getting into *your* project (since avoiding it was your intent), which was what the GGP was speaking to.

Your example only raises questions in my mind about what that Debian package maintainer was thinking of (did he know of the GPL'd sub-parts?), but it doesn't say anything to me about the GPL being 'hard to avoid' for non-GPL'd code, since in this case, it was avoided.

GPL is about fixing public domain.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

I put everything in the public domain, and I sleep well at night without having nightmares that someone might have violated my license.

Then here's a nightmare for you:

  - A serious bug is discovered in your wonderful PD product. (Maybe some subtle security hole that the malware gangs find and exploit.)

  - Somebody makes a fix AND COPYRIGHTS THE FIXED VERSION.

  - You can't import the fix to YOUR version without violating the copyright.

  - None of your users can fix the bug either. They have to migrate to the other guy's version - maybe for big bucks, drop the functionality, or go with some other product. They're screwed.

  - Your left with no users of your stuff (except the ones that are using it as the other guy's version) and no way to expand and improve it (except to go to work for the other guy).

THIS is what GPL is designed to head off: Screwing the users and locking the original authors out of their own product's future. Under the current copyright law, public domain is BROKEN for any evolving software product.

Re:GPL is about fixing public domain.

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit.

First: He naturally has copyright on his fix. Not on your code. And that is true regardless of the license. He has the same copyright if the product is GPL licensed.

Second: Why can none of my users fix the bug? What makes the other person so special?

Third: I still have the code. Why can't I expand and improve that?

And here is a nightmare for you:

- A serious bug is discovered in your service application which is distributed under GPL.

- Somebody makes a fix AND COPYRIGHTS THAT FIX.

- You can't import import the fix to YOUR version because they guy isn't releasing the source. He is not forced to because he doesn't distribute the code. He just makes loads of money by offering a better service than your product.

Re:GPL is about fixing public domain.

[Ash-Fox]

Note: I am not the grandfather poster.

First: He naturally has copyright on his fix. Not on your code. And that is true regardless of the license. He has the same copyright if the product is GPL licensed.

You're avoiding the fact that he can set a license that prevents people from using it without purchasing a license to that specific guy's software and using it with that guy's release.

Second: Why can none of my users fix the bug? What makes the other person so special?

Checkout why Wine moved from BSD to GPL.

Third: I still have the code. Why can't I expand and improve that?

See what happened above.

- A serious bug is discovered in your service application which is distributed under GPL.

- Somebody makes a fix AND COPYRIGHTS THAT FIX.

- You can't import import the fix to YOUR version because they guy isn't releasing the source. He is not forced to because he doesn't distribute the code. He just makes loads of money by offering a better service than your product.

Should have licensed that under AGPL then, no?

Re:GPL is about fixing public domain.

[Ash-Fox]

Fix: Confused BSD with MIT above. Wine also uses LGPL for various components.

Re:GPL is about fixing public domain.

[Anonymous Coward]

You are handwaving.

You wrote that:

None of your users can fix the bug either.

And that:

Your left with no users of your stuff (...) and no way to expand and improve it (...).

And you justify that by the example of Wine?
The Wine people had concerns about proprietary versions of Wine not contributing back.

Do you really see no difference between "I cannot improve my code" and "I cannot use the improvements of others in my code"? So, how comes I cannot improve my code when it is in the public domain?

Re:GPL is about fixing public domain.

[petrus4]

Checkout why Wine moved from BSD to GPL.

According to Wikipedia, it looks as though the Wine developers had an attack of reciprocity paranoia. This invalidates the BSD license...how, exactly?

There is some bullshit here which needs debunking. Proprietary forks of a non-copyleft project do not inherently "lock out a project's original authors from the subsequent development of a project," at all. Under a non-copyleft license, said original developers never lose their own code, at all. Someone else can fork it, which is fine; and it's still fine even if any of the subsequent (possibly proprietary) forks happen to become more popular than the original project. If popularity is the main thing a project's developers are worried about, I'd begin to seriously wonder about their motivations in programming at all, to be honest.

I'm aware that, as usual, the "duplication of effort," strawman will probably be offered in refutation to this, as well; as in, if a proprietary fork doesn't submit bug fixes back to a parent project, the parent project's developers will have to duplicate the effort of fixing the same bugs.

Truthfully, though, I feel that duplication of effort is something else which is feared both excessively and irrationally, within GPL oriented circles. It's not always a bad thing; there are often times when the original implementation of something really does suck, and can therefore benefit from being thrown away and rewritten from scratch.

Not only that, but a fork by definition is not going to follow the same development path as a parent project anyway. That means that by definition, different bugs are going to end up being produced, and different bugs may or may not get fixed; so there's no automatic guarantee that effort will be duplicated.

I also view the use of the GPL as an indication of inferior intelligence, being completely blunt. People who use the GPL, generally aren't able to objectively assess the negative legal consequences of doing so, or the fact that the usual rationale for the existence of copyleft (reciprocity paranoia; the idea that if people aren't legally forced to contribute modifications to FOSS projects, then said projects will automatically dry up, because people are so inherently evil, stupid, and self-destructive that they'd never voluntarily do so themselves) is emotively based, and demonstrably logically bogus.

If reciprocity paranoia was legitimate, then no BSD licensed project would be able to continue to exist. If it were true that legal enforcement was the only way of ensuring that anyone contributed to FOSS projects, the BSDs and other projects such as PostgreSQL would have died long ago. They haven't, however, because people keep contributing to them; people who do so entirely voluntarily, without having a legal gun held against their heads.

I also know, that that is the main reason why Stallman's cultists don't like the BSDs, or BSD licensed projects, to be mentioned at all. The fact that BSD licensed projects are able to viably continue to exist, is the proverbial inconvenient truth. It undermines the central rationale of Stallman's proposed, desired ideological control of people and the software they use, and also proves that his view of human nature is both excessively negative, and entirely false.

GPL advocates can attempt to argue with this as much as they want. I will say it again; you are cultists. Any argument in favour of the GPL is not logically based; if you were thinking logically, you wouldn't be advocating the GPL in the first place. Your entire rationale is drawn from emotion, (primarily fear, and secondarily a desire to adhere to Stallman's mind control, which leads back to said fear) and not reason. You therefore are incapable of making any argument that I am going to consider valid.

Re:GPL is about fixing public domain.

[Ash-Fox]

According to Wikipedia, it looks as though the Wine developers had an attack of reciprocity paranoia. This invalidates the BSD license...how, exactly?

Nope. Try a more reliable source like the Wine mailing lists.

Re:GPL is about fixing public domain.

[Ash-Fox]

The Wine people had concerns about proprietary versions of Wine not contributing back.

It was a lot more than that. You have failed to do your research. I suggest looking at the Wine mailing list archives.

Re:GPL is about fixing public domain.

[petrus4]

Nope. Try a more reliable source like the Wine mailing lists.

I'm not sure why I'm bothering to do this, because I know you're going to continue to think the same thing regardless, but...

I'm looking at http://www.winehq.org/history which I assume you're hopefully going to agree, is likely a reliable source. ;) I've tried searching for mailing list entries, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of stuff out there, at least that Google is showing up.

Anyway, there seem to be a couple of points.

a) RMS helpfully pointed out that, at the time anyway, the BSD license was considered incompatible with the GPL.
b) There was, as I already surmised in the GP, fear of Wine being "hijacked," by a commercial entity, apparently Corel.

c) There was apparently a majority vote to switch to the LGPL. I don't place a lot of confidence in such democratic measures where Stallman is concerned; a majority vote to move a project to an FSF license isn't going to necessarily mean much, if the people voting aren't capable of objectivity where said licenses are concerned. It reminds me of the amount of pressure that Alan Cox was trying to initially put on Linus, to move the kernel to version 3 of the GPL.

If you want to give yourself some credibility, in response to this, I'd suggest actually trying to legitimately refute what I've already written in the GP, rather than simply coming back again with another variation of the "citation needed," troll; which I suspect in this case translates to you actually not having a more legitimate comeback.

Re:GPL is about fixing public domain.

[Ash-Fox]

I'm looking at http://www.winehq.org/history which I assume you're hopefully going to agree, is likely a reliable source.

It's very incomplete. Part of the story is how the WineX developers and such promised that they would contribute work on DX to Wine, which is discussed in detail on the mailing lists. This lead to a huge amount of developer stagnation in the area as everyone was just waiting on the "patches" that would bring all this new functionality.

Years pass and it ends up becoming obvious that the WineX/cedega developers had no intention of keeping their promise despite their continuous reassurances, thus causing a huge amount of stagnation in development in Wine's development in the Direct X area, during this time a lot of the developers felt that this was a catalyst that should push the licensing changes to prevent something like this (and other events noted in Wine's history) from ever happening again, where it took them more years to get where they are today which, in many ways, is still lacking compared to Cedega who had a large head start due to deceiving the WineHQ people who are still playing catch up.

A lot of these events are not documented on the website and other places except in discussions on the WineHQ mailing lists as it doesn't help very much with a 'professional' image of Wine by ranting on about all the booboos Wine had.

Had Wine been licensed the way it is today, quite a few negative incidents could have been avoided and Wine would have been better off today.

I've tried searching for mailing list entries, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of stuff out there, at least that Google is showing up.

It's all there, I just don't want to spend a few hours looking through the archives, but I'm sure there are those on Slashdot that do 'obsess' enough over this to do so.

Re:GPL is about fixing public domain.

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you kidding me? You can't even be bothered to drop two sentences about how that could possibly work. And you expect me to search through the Wine mailing list archives? I am not going to waste my time like that. Try harder.

Re:GPL is about fixing public domain.

[Ash-Fox]

Are you kidding me? You can't even be bothered to drop two sentences about how that could possibly work.

I already did drop a few paragraphs on this else where on this article.

Try harder.

No.

It's not an ELUA. It's a distribution license.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

That's a EULA. ... And remember, EULAs are not enforceable.

Sorry, wrong.

It's not an End User License Agreement. It's a license to copy and distribute a copyrighted work.

Very different animal.

And it's not take-it-or-leave-it, either. If the work has an identifiable set of authors you can attempt to negotiate a non-GPL alternate license with them. (This will usually involve giving them some money and terms that don't screw up their FOSS-licensed product.) Some projects have such licenses as a standard offering.

By "GNU compatible" you mean the GPL?

[jonaskoelker]

open source project have violations [...] calling a library that isn't GNU compatible.

I take it by "GNU compatible" you mean GPL compatible?

Or were you suggesting that calling a library which can't be used on the GNU OS (with, of course, the wonderful microkernel Hurd) will bring forth the wrath of the Holy Warrior Stallman who will then be forced to swing with his katana[1][2]? ;-)

[1] http://xkcd.com/225/
[2] http://blag.xkcd.com/2007/04/19/life-imitates-xkcd-part-ii-richard-stallman/

As much as I like the latter interpretation, I'm thinking you meant the first. Yes? :)

copyright law works fine

[Xtifr]

1) GPL software is not very profitable.

Tell that to the companies that are making millions and millions. Didn't IBM invest a billion in Linux a few years back, and then claim that they'd more than recouped their investment in fairly short order?

2) The GPL is only enforceable in civil court.

The GPL is a defense against charges of copyright violation. You don't enforce it, you ignore it and sue for copyright violation. It's up the the defendant to proffer the GPL in their own defense if they can (and if they can, then they weren't violating it, so why'd you sue them?) Yes, it's usually done in civil court, because copyright violation is not usually a criminal matter (though it can be), but so what? The only real difference is that the burden of proof becomes "preponderance of the evidence" rather than "beyond reasonable doubt", which is to your advantage, and the violators aren't likely to be looking at jail time, which doesn't seem unreasonable. So, what's your point here?

3) Those who use GPL software aren't the people violators sell to.

A) how do you know that? and B) how is that relevant to anything? Anything at all?

4) GPL software lacks civil and legal representation.

This sentence doesn't even make any sense. Software doesn't have lawyers; people (and companies) do. Some people don't have much money to spend on lawyers; others, especially big companies like Red Hat and Novell and IBM do. Individuals are going to find it fairly hard to fight big companies that are trying to rip them off, but that has nothing to do with the GPL, and everything to do with the inequities of our legal system(s). But there's a lot of money behind GPL software these days. A whole lot! It ain't 1992 any more. Free/Libre/Open Source is big business these days!

To sue, one must prove damages.

And it's not hard to prove. The German and US courts have already accepted that the quid-pro-quo element of the GPL is a viable means of exchange; damages don't have to be monetary. If you live in another country than those two, you might have to prove that it's true in your jurisdiction, but the reasoning is pretty clear, and I'd be stunned if any judge anywhere ruled elsewise. Anyway, the goal is usually compliance, not restitution.

Re:copyright law works fine

[v(*_*)vvvv]

1) GPL software is not very profitable.

Tell that to the companies that are making millions and millions. Didn't IBM invest a billion in Linux a few years back, and then claim that they'd more than recouped their investment in fairly short order?

Using GPL software to make money and selling GPL software are two different things. Those who write GPL software aren't making much money. Business models are built around GPL software, not on top of it.

2) The GPL is only enforceable in civil court.

The GPL is a defense against charges of copyright violation. You don't enforce it, you ignore it and sue for copyright violation. [...]

The GPL is a copyright license, so enforcement is suing for a copyright violation. It is an agreement, that when violated, makes you liable, in this case, liable for noncompliance. Copyright violations are criminal, but damages are a civil matter. Fines are not damages.

3) Those who use GPL software aren't the people violators sell to.

A) how do you know that? and B) how is that relevant to anything? Anything at all?

First, free software users aren't the best audience to sell software to, especially software you stole from them. Second, stolen code is most likely going into proprietary software or into hardware where it cannot be found. Third, if GPL software is being sold to people who would never have used it without the violators selling it to them, then the authors are not at a loss. It is a situation where someone else gained from an area in which you would have never gained anything. So it's about the only thing that matters in a civil case, really: what harm did it do to you?

4) GPL software lacks civil and legal representation.

This sentence doesn't even make any sense.[...]

A group of geographically scattered coders will not be equally represented in court as Microsoft or Apple. That is all I am saying.

To sue, one must prove damages.

And it's not hard to prove. [...]

Damages don't have to be monetary, but monetary damages are often the only damages that matter. I violated. I lost. So I was forced to release the code. Big whoop. Compare that to having to pay 20 million dollars. To a business, money matters more than compliance. And only when compliance becomes a monetary issue are they inclined to comply. Like parking tickets.

Hence: There is no legal pressure on any company that steals GPL code.

Put even simpler: The cops won't come after you, only recreational coders with no lawyers. If and when they do, and you lose, you *might* have to comply depending on the judge. Not a very scary situation.

Hackers coming after you is far scarier, but then again, relying on retaliation against civil violations with criminal acts will not get an industry very far.

Ummm.... Apple?

[Anonymous Coward]

GPL violations... Ever heard of a company called APPLE?

GPL violation

[mahadiga]

How can anybody sue a closed source software company for GPL violation?

Re:GPL violation

[True Grit]

How can anybody sue a closed source software company for GPL violation?

Ever go bit-diving in a binary? You'd be amazed at what can show up there, and thats especially true if the violation was accidental rather than willful, since in those cases no one bothered or thought to go through and scrub any incriminating text strings (like author's names!) or obfuscate uncommon function/variable names which can also appear in the binary (but are never printed or otherwise shown to the program's user).

Re:GPL violation

[mahadiga]

I was looking for this

Lets just call this "Strike 1" of three, move on..

[Russell McOrmond]

I say we just call this "Strike 1" of the three strikes rules, and move forward with revoking Microsoft's Internet Connection.

For what I'm really saying, see: Word manipulation, hypocrisy, and the so-called Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)