Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Linux beats legal threat from one of its own developers

zdnet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 92 posts

Re: Linux beats legal threat from one of its own developers

#11

Post by belltaco »

deathanatos wrote: post #9
na85 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

But the companies that are forced to pay out large amounts are going to be more careful next time and release their contributions as source code. Same with other companies that see this going on. That's a win for Linux and GPL code.

Re: Linux beats legal threat from one of its own developers

#12

Post by exikyut »

julienfr112 wrote: post #2

In 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 there's no legal and/or social infrastructure in place that demands the bounty hunter shares their winnings.

The way things are right now, the bounty hunter could argue that the very idea of the statement above is absurd - and that demonstrates how broken things are.

I can't help but agree more and more as time goes by that maybe Linux is getting too big for its own good. I do wonder how it'll topple.

Re: Linux beats legal threat from one of its own developers

#14

Post by shakna »

belltaco wrote: post #11
deathanatos wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

But the companies that are forced to pay out large amounts are going to be more careful next time and release their contributions as source code. Same with other companies that see this going on. That's a win for Linux and GPL code.

In my experience, they'll either be much more careful about hiding their reliance, or just strip Linux out of everything. Not contribute back.

Re: Linux beats legal threat from one of its own developers

#15

Post by greglindahl »

sametmax wrote: post #6
detaro wrote: post #3

Earlier 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…

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.

The license is enforced, just more gently than some might want.

Re: Linux beats legal threat from one of its own developers

#16

Post by greglindahl »

lovelearning wrote: post #13

Very OT, but I just found it funny that this renowned tech website that has published articles like "It's HTTPS or bust: How to secure your website"[1] doesn't use HTTPS itself. [1]: http://www.zdnet.com/article/how-to-secure-your-website/

When you see this for a news website, it's usually because they deal with dodgy ad networks that aren't https yet.

Re: Linux beats legal threat from one of its own developers

#18

Post by dizzystar »

sametmax wrote: post #6
detaro wrote: post #3

Earlier 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…

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.

If it was under WTFL, the company would be able to release everything closed-source, which is exactly what the open source community is trying to discourage.

It also makes no sense to sue the companies violating the licenses. They would be more inclined to move to a closed-source option with a known fee, since the very product you are using has an ambiguous cost attached to it.

For example, I have deep disdain for people who build up WordPress or Drupal sites for clients and flat out refuse to let the customer have their code, but that still doesn't mean they should get sued to oblivion, no matter how much I disagree with this practice.

If you are for open source, you want to actively encourage the use of these platforms (regardless if you think they are trash) instead of having these people move over to some equally bad system. This is worse for the OSS community. It's also worse for the customer, since hidden fees for MS or Oracle will be tacked onto the product price. If word got out, even those who follow GPLv2 to a T would have reason to be nervous, so they'd just migrate off the platform as well.

Re: Linux beats legal threat from one of its own developers

#19

Post by sametmax »

dizzystar wrote: post #18
sametmax wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If it was under WTFL, the company would be able to release everything closed-source, which is exactly what the open source community is trying to discourage. It also makes no sense to sue the companies violating the licenses. They would be more inclined to move to a closed-source option with a known fee, since the very product you are using has an ambiguous cost attached to it. For example, I have deep disdain for pe…

> If it was under WTFL, the company would be able to release everything closed-source, which is exactly what the open source community is trying to discourage.

Apparently they already can. If there is no enforcement, what prevents anybody from doing it ? Good will.

> but that still doesn't mean they should get sued to oblivion, no matter how much I disagree with this practice.

Remove "should" and "to oblivion", and the result seems reasonable. After all, we can't give tickets like for speeding for those infraction. The only problem with sueing here is the cost of it.

But it's perfectly alright from a moral point of view. People worked hard, sometimes for free, for free software to exist, out of idealism. The only thing they demand is to accept the licence.

Re: Linux beats legal threat from one of its own developers

#20

Post by sametmax »

greglindahl wrote: post #15
sametmax wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The license is enforced, just more gently than some might want.

Define "gently", because that doesn't seems like a term that goes well with enforcement, which contains the root "force".
Post reply on HN