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.
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!)
>> 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