Linux beats legal threat from one of its own developers
1–10 of 92 posts
Re: Linux beats legal threat from one of its own developers
#2In fact, he acted like a bounty hunter : chasing wrongdoers ( companies that do not comply with the GPLv2) for his own personal gain. If you are serious about the GPL license, you should also be serious about punishing companies that violate it. And if the Free Software Foundation has not enough guns, why not let bounty hunters do the job ?
Re: Linux beats legal threat from one of its own developers
#3In fact, he acted like a bounty hunter : chasing wrongdoers ( companies that do not comply with the GPLv2) for his own personal gain. If you are serious about the GPL license, you should also be serious about punishing companies that violate it. And if the Free Software Foundation has not enough guns, why not let bounty hunters do the job ?
Because the Linux Kernel community doesn't do enforcement like that not because they don't have enough guns, but because they believe it to be harmful to the overall ecosystem. If you plan to slowly herd them to where you want them, a bounty hunter taking loud potshots scaring everyone doesn't help.
The theory is that a violating Linux-based device where you can try to get the manufacturer to fix this in the future is better than a device with a closed system and no chance of getting it opened because the manufacturer was scared of legal consequences of using Linux.
Re: Linux beats legal threat from one of its own developers
#4In fact, he acted like a bounty hunter : chasing wrongdoers ( companies that do not comply with the GPLv2) for his own personal gain. If you are serious about the GPL license, you should also be serious about punishing companies that violate it. And if the Free Software Foundation has not enough guns, why not let bounty hunters do the job ?
Because the goal is achieving compliance (something that would benefit everyone), not punishment (something that just benefits the author).
Re: Linux beats legal threat from one of its own developers
#5Unless I'm missing something, it sounds like McHardy has only dropped one of his "over 38" cases, due to the potential for a much more expensive, risky legal battle. What's to prevent him from continuing his activities in other jurisdictions under less savvy judges?
Also, how is this a victory by Linux? I see no mention of activity by the rest of the Linux community while Geniatech fought the legal battle.
Re: Linux beats legal threat from one of its own developers
#6In fact, he acted like a bounty hunter : chasing wrongdoers ( companies that do not comply with the GPLv2) for his own personal gain. If you are serious about the GPL license, you should also be serious about punishing companies that violate it. And if the Free Software Foundation has not enough guns, why not let bounty hunters do the job ?
Because the Linux Kernel community doesn't do enforcement like that not because they don't have enough guns, but because they believe it to be harmful to the overall ecosystem. If you plan to slowly herd them to where you want them, a bounty hunter taking loud potshots scaring everyone doesn't help. The theory is that a violating Linux-based device where you can try to get the manufacturer to fix this in the future i…
But if the licence is not enforced, then what's the point of writing it or using it ? Put it under WTFL. Shorter, less paper work.
Re: Linux beats legal threat from one of its own developers
#7In fact, he acted like a bounty hunter : chasing wrongdoers ( companies that do not comply with the GPLv2) for his own personal gain. If you are serious about the GPL license, you should also be serious about punishing companies that violate it. And if the Free Software Foundation has not enough guns, why not let bounty hunters do the job ?
Because the Linux Kernel community doesn't do enforcement like that not because they don't have enough guns, but because they believe it to be harmful to the overall ecosystem. If you plan to slowly herd them to where you want them, a bounty hunter taking loud potshots scaring everyone doesn't help. The theory is that a violating Linux-based device where you can try to get the manufacturer to fix this in the future i…
Tell that to Richard Stallman.
Re: Linux beats legal threat from one of its own developers
#8In fact, he acted like a bounty hunter : chasing wrongdoers ( companies that do not comply with the GPLv2) for his own personal gain. If you are serious about the GPL license, you should also be serious about punishing companies that violate it. And if the Free Software Foundation has not enough guns, why not let bounty hunters do the job ?
Because the Linux Kernel community doesn't do enforcement like that not because they don't have enough guns, but because they believe it to be harmful to the overall ecosystem. If you plan to slowly herd them to where you want them, a bounty hunter taking loud potshots scaring everyone doesn't help. The theory is that a violating Linux-based device where you can try to get the manufacturer to fix this in the future i…
If they don't care about companies leeching off of free work, why not license it under BSD?
The whole point of the GPL is that it's an enforceable license.
Re: Linux beats legal threat from one of its own developers
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because the Linux Kernel community doesn't do enforcement like that not because they don't have enough guns, but because they believe it to be harmful to the overall ecosystem. If you plan to slowly herd them to where you want them, a bounty hunter taking loud potshots scaring everyone doesn't help. The theory is that a violating Linux-based device where you can try to get the manufacturer to fix this in the future i…
If they don't care about companies leeching off of free work, why not license it under BSD? The whole point of the GPL is that it's an enforceable license.
They do care about companies leeching off of free work, is the point; they just don't want the outcome to be financial gain, rather, they want the companies to stop "leeching", and rather contribute their contributions back to the community, so that others can benefit from the work just as they benefited from the work those before them did.
(This "contribute back" aspect is, IMO, the core difference between MIT/BSD and the GPL.)
Re: Linux beats legal threat from one of its own developers
#10In fact, he acted like a bounty hunter : chasing wrongdoers ( companies that do not comply with the GPLv2) for his own personal gain. If you are serious about the GPL license, you should also be serious about punishing companies that violate it. And if the Free Software Foundation has not enough guns, why not let bounty hunters do the job ?
Several things:
The FSF, and the SF Conservancy (which does the bulk of GPL enforcement) espouse Community-Oriented GPL Enforcement[1]. The goal of Community-Oriented Enforcement is compliance, not punishment.
[1]: https://www.fsf.org/licensing/enforcement-principles
McHardy wasn't seeking compliance. He was saying "Your license to my portions of the kernel was automatically revoked when you did X. Pay me damages." This could arguably work as a deterrent, but it does nothing to fix the current violation.
Additionally, a problem with the GPLv2 is that it is automatically revoked upon violation, and has no reinstatement clauses. If a company violates the GPLv2, and then the SF Conservancy enforces the GPL against them, after it's all worked out, the SF Conservancy can reinstate the license to the portion of the code that the SF Conservancy owns or represents the owners of, but there's still quite a bit of code for which the infringer technically hasn't had its license reinstated for. Even after working everything out with the SF Conservancy, McHardy could say "Ok, but they didn't reinstate your license to the portion of the code that I own. You're infringing on my copyright, pay me damages."