Slashdot Mirror
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."
hardcore closed source company is alwyas going to have violations. Also it's Microsoft.
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.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
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.
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.
Stallman in a bikini.
Ok, there's your nightmare material for tonight.
I like keeping my software free for everyone for ever. I'm glad you enjoy end users being robbed of their freedom.
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.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
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.
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.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
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 if the company made, or is making, $$$ selling an open-source derived product? Without distributing source? What should be done?
Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
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.
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.
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.
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.
...but it sure is cathartic - have a look at the blog in my sig line!
My web domain.
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.
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.
"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?
You left out 'people trolling about copyright', evidently.
This will help you visualize:
http://www.keepaustinweird.com/images/leslie.jpg
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
So the next logical step is a lawsuit ?
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.
Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
>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.
Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
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.
Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
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.
Comment of the year
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.
... and then they built the supercollider.
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?
Comment of the year
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?
:(){
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."
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.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
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.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
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.
Surely you would suggest they grab a public domain compiler given your stance on the GPL?
Normal people worry me!
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.
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...
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.
Comment of the year
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! :)
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.
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.
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.
Account -> Discussions -> Disable Sigs
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.
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."
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.
... and then they built the supercollider.
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.
404555974007725459910684486621289147856453481154 in hex is "You sank my Battleship?"
[GPG key in journal]
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. ;)
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.
Account -> Discussions -> Disable Sigs
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".
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.
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.
+----------------- | What is the question!
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.
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.
[
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.
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.
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.
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.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Do not conflate the GPL with the public domain.
For the record, I didn't. ;)
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
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."
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.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
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.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
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.
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.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Please try to make sense when you post things. It helps us to understand your point.
Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
Hate to ruin Rennt's Law for you, but I have never used BSD nor am I familiar with any licensing associated with it.
Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
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.
Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
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.
Note: I am not the grandfather poster.
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.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
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.
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.
The enemies of Democracy are
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.
:(){
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?
:(){
If I promise to license all my future code GPLv3 will you remove this image from my head, please?
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...
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? :)
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
How can anybody sue a closed source software company for GPL violation?
I'd like to buy homeland for our 10 million people. http://twitter.com/mahadiga
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.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
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.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
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.
:(){
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)
Digital Copyright Canada forum
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
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.
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...
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'.