Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Joins Group Working To 'Cure' Open-Source Licensing Issues (zdnet.com)
Microsoft is joining Red Hat, Facebook, Google and IBM in committing to extending right to "cure" open source licensing noncompliance before taking legal measures. From a report: On March 19, officials from Microsoft -- along with CA Technologies, Cisco, HPE, SAP and SUSE -- said they'd work with open together with the already-committed vendors to provide more "predictability" for users of open source software. "The large ecosystems of projects using the GPLv2 and LGPLv2.x licenses will benefit from adoption of this more balanced approach to termination derived from GPLv3," explained Red Hat in a press release announcing the new license-compliance partners. The companies which have agreed to adopt the "Common Cure Rights Commitment" said before they file or continue to prosecute those accused of violating covered licenses, they will allow for users to cure and reinstate their licenses.
You find yourself at the top of the slippery side of Mt. Software License.
Companies tired of getting called out for violating your open source license are offering you an olive branch one step down the slippery side.
Think hard before walking out to greet them...
The GPL and LGPL aren't exactly hard to understand. I think the issue in most cases is that people don't read the license that allows them to use the software they use. In which case they just make random assumptions and move on.
Such irresponsibility would lead to BSD violations too.
So, the GPL isn't as cut a dried and obvious as Slashdotters insist it is.
And the issues regarding the license wasn't FUD after all.
Color me surprised! I thought all Slashdotters were legal experts.
The license is clear on what you are allowed to do (which is more than copyright law requires them to do) with the copyrighted material. These companies want to restrict copyright holders who use the GPL from using the legally allowed means of ENFORCING that copyright once it has been violated. Where do these companies get the right to dictate to the copyright holders how they will enforce it?
I'll take these guys seriously once they make a legally binding commitment to handle violations of THEIR copyrights by the same rules that they want to impose on people using the GPL.
The companies involved have never been known to bring suit regarding Open Source licenses. The promise to give a cure period is thus hollow.
Bruce Perens.
Microsoft is as likely to cure OSS licensing problems as undertakers are to cure cancer.
Table-ized A.I.
I'm afraid you have to work on your understanding of licensing.
All copyright holders can bring suit. Thus, if some company modifies your GPL software to which you own the copyright, you can still bring suit regarding the part you wrote.
Also, the word "proprietary" in this context is referring to licenses that do not give the rights required in Open Source licenses.
Bruce Perens.
they just make random assumptions and move on.
People do this with proprietary software as well. They don't read the EULA and they copy from friends. Why should they only get impunity for copyright violations of the GPL? Why doesn't Microsoft support a "first time free" policy for their own software?
Came in here to say just that. Copyfree licenses, such as BSD, are what you should use if you want your code to be free and used for any purpose. GPL is what you want to use if you want to prevent commercial use of your code inside of another program. Or if you want to be an ass and make other copyfree things GPL/non commercial. It's the libertarianism vs communism of licensing.
(Yes, you can throw the argument of commercial GPL software out there. It exists, I know. And now you have cloud services as a result. Software as an internet service... thanks GNU!)
Reading comprehension fail. From TFS: "The companies which have agreed to adopt the 'Common Cure Rights Commitment' said before they file or continue to prosecute those accused of violating covered licenses, they will allow for users to cure and reinstate their licenses."
They use the GPL. They are pledging to to this with their copyrighted material licensed under the GPL.
Geesh...
Surgeon Microsoft has advised the patient, "Sometimes, the easiest cure is to kill the patient."
The companies which have just promised to give people time before they sue are not known for ever having sued regarding a GPL license. Thus, this is posturing.
Bruce Perens.
Of course to us it's as if you don't exist as well.
Bruce Perens.
It is if you are trying push it to its limits, trying to mix non-GPL with GPL technologies. Using GPL technology as part of a larger service... Real life stuff, where it isn't as black and white as RMS sees it. And the GPL while may be written clearly, does have interesting loopholes. Such as the Anti-Tivoization rule, that makes the exception for IBM to do it on their mainframes. Cloud and SaaS usages havn't been completely defined.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
I too was an Open Source nut in college. However giving away changes to a an Open Source Application isn't nuts, it is probably the responsible thing to do. However if your changes do something significant to change the application, the GPL is a ball and chain.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
...Is this is "Extend" or "Extinguish" phase?
It's surely one or the other.
>> It is if you are trying push it to its limits, trying to mix non-GPL with GPL technologies
No problem here.
You can do pretty much everything with a GPL program, except statically link or mix in code with a non GPL compatible licence.
BSD is GPL compatible.
No problem here.
aaaaaaa
Or they have been practicing what they preach, and are now putting a public face on the policy in order to pressure others to do the same. Just because the FSF/SFLC works with those in breach to resolve the problem without litigation does not mean that there are not bad actors as well.
You don't necessarily have to give away the changes either.
Two options:
You distribute a modified binary and a matching modified source code.
You don't distribute either. --- this is perfectly acceptable (!).
Nope, you still have the exact same problem because BSD has very strict compliance requirements that not everybody is even willing to engage in.
The weird part is that you seem to be claiming to have knowledge about different licenses, and yet even though you've been corrected about this point on this very website repeatedly, you still make the same idiotic claim about the BSD license. You spam the same words every time it comes up.
So look, No. The only license that lets users stop caring about it is the Apache 2 license. It is the only one that everybody, GPL, BSD/MIT, proprietary, they can all just use it and not worry.
Bullshit, BSD has restrictions that don't work for everybody, it is just a lie to represent it the way you do. It is your favorite, that's great. But it doesn't have the least restrictions, and it isn't for any purpose.
There are more than 2 licenses in use, BTW. Look it up if you don't believe.
I gather you've never heard of the Affero GPL.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife