Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

How Far Should GPL Enforcement Go?

Posted by timothy on from the lo-unto-the-ends-of-the-earth dept.

itwbennett writes "The debate over enforcement of the GPL flared up again this week when Red Hat kernel developer Matthew Garrett wrote in a blog post that Sony is looking to rewrite BusyBox to sidestep the GPL. Which is a perfectly legal undertaking. But it raises the question: 'Is there social pressure within the Linux kernel community to not undertake GPL compliance action?' writes blogger Brian Proffitt. 'This may not be nefarious: maybe people just would rather not bother with enforcing compliance. Better, they may argue, to just let the violation go and get on with developing better code.'"

5 of 432 comments (clear)

  1. As far as everyone else by inode_buddha · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think GPL enforcement sould go just as far as everyone else. It should go as far as copyright law allows and as far as the copyright lobby goes.

    --
    C|N>K
  2. Re:Slashdot double standards by ad454 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There is a huge difference between copyright enforcement against individuals in the context of personal use, and organizations in the context of earning signifigant revenue.

    Most people including those on Slashdot, do not think it is reasonable to sell a pirated DVD movie on a street corner for profit, but consider it okay to download that same movie for media shifting for personal viewing.

    Sony should be applauded for making their own BusyBox alternative, rather than violate the GPL. Hopefully it will be released as opensource with a different licence, for those that want an alternative choice. Adding more choice is a good thing!

  3. Re:I'm not sure I understand by Daniel+Phillips · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But I'm not sure I understand the argument that is being made here. If Sony is really trying to "rewrite Busybox" -- which makes it sound like they're going to look at the Busybox code and write a new version that does the same thing in a different way -- then surely that's a derivative work of Busybox and it's a copyright violation.

    Is that really considered a derivative work just because they can see the source? Genuinely curious here.

    It can be. That is why cloning a library under an incompatible license typically requires an expensive "clean room" engineering process. Of course, Sony holding to their well known high moral and ethical standards, would never think of playing fast and loose with this, would they? And of course we would never notice if they cut a few corners to save cost, would we?

    --
    Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
  4. Re:Execution by Githaron · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I was thought the GPL was supposed to prevent businesses from exploiting the hard work of volunteers trying to make open software. If a business wants to reimplement a whole piece of software from scratch, I see no reason why we should stop them. Nor the reverse. If the community wants to reimplement software so that there is a open version out there, I don't think businesses should be allowed to interfere. Now, if a business wants to take the GPL'ed software, reimplement part of it and then close the whole thing, now there is an issue.

  5. Re:Execution by Nursie · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's a matter of the (L)GPL being a shitty license for corporate use. If they wish to use the code they are under restrictions that can mean big problems if they are even accidentally violated.

    This is pretty much pure FUD.

    If they "accidentally" violate a commercial license then they could be on the hook for millions of dollars. With the GPL the choice is generally to distribute the source or stop distributing. Hell, even with the recent "aggressive" enforcement, the only really onerous bit is paying $5k per time to have future FOSS projects vetted. Compared to settling a lawsuit with a commercial vendor, it's peanuts.

    Why *wouldn't* they put the time into rewriting it in house? It's pretty easy when you're essentially transcribing source code.

    If they're transcribing source code then they've absolutely within the bounds of derivative work and will fall foul of copyright law.

    The GPL is a great hobbyist license but it's a pain in the ass at the corporate level, especially when you aren't really a software firm.

    It's less onerous that many commercial licenses. The problem comes from the lax attitude towards it. If people further down your supply chain were including commercial code or libraries without the proper license compliance then things would be worse.