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

21–30 of 92 posts

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

#21

Post by pjmlp »

paulsutter wrote: post #17

If anyone needed another reason to avoid GPL software here you go. I thought the whole idea of open source was to avoid litigious assholes.

Idea of GPL is that developers are also users from someone's else work, and everyone on the chain is entitled to get the source code.

If you prefer to give the work for free, without strings attached, then don't complain companies are evil and such.

People bash GPL, but had Linux and GNU did not exist, and most likely everyone would still be using Solaris, Aix, HP-UX, DG/UX, Irix, Tru64,....

I have my doubts the BSDs would have had the same industry adoption.

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

#22

Post by greglindahl »

sametmax wrote: post #20
greglindahl wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

The definition has already been given in the other comments in this discussion about how the community prefers enforcement to be done.

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

#23

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#24

Post by antonvs »

paulsutter wrote: post #17

If anyone needed another reason to avoid GPL software here you go. I thought the whole idea of open source was to avoid litigious assholes.

If the companies being targeted hadn't violated the GPL, they wouldn't be subject to lawsuits like these.

So this is "another reason" not to violate the GPL. It doesn't affect compliant GPL users.

> I thought the whole idea of open source was to avoid litigious assholes.

It sounds as though you're anti-GPL, so perhaps in this case the distinction between "open source" and GPL-style "free software" is relevant.

The GPL imposes a significant requirement on users, which is that if you make changes to GPL software and distribute that software, you must make the source code to those changes available. This has nothing to do with "avoiding litigious assholes", so your assessment of the "whole idea" is not accurate when it comes to GPL software.

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

#25

Post by forapurpose »

LukeShu wrote: post #10
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 ?

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."…

Thanks; that's very informative.

> The goal of Community-Oriented Enforcement is compliance, not punishment.

Is there some record of the debate, if any, that led to this policy? Clearly, financial costs are a deterrent that leads to compliance. Many laws, regulations, and contracts achieve compliance in this manner. That doesn't make the FSF's position wrong, but I wonder how they reached it.

The FSF agrees, to an extent: https://www.fsf.org/licensing/enforcement-principles

Community-oriented enforcement must never prioritize financial gain. Financial penalties are a legitimate tool to achieve compliance when used judiciously. Logically, if the only penalty for violation is simply compliance with the original rules, bad actors will just wait for an enforcement action before even reading the GPL. That social model for copyleft and its enforcement is untenable and unsustainable. An enforcement system without a financial penalty favors bad actors over good ones, since the latter bear the minimal (but non-trivial) staffing cost of compliant distribution while the former avoid it ...

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

#26

Post by sametmax »

greglindahl wrote: post #22
sametmax wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The definition has already been given in the other comments in this discussion about how the community prefers enforcement to be done.

No it hasn't.

That's not enforcement.

The community choose not to enforce. "gently" has nothing to do with it.

I get that this is a preference, and they make the software and choose the licence so this is their choice.

But that's not enforcement.

It basically means you can do whatever you want with it.

And hence people do.

The system works because a few are giving away a lot while most benefit from it with taking without giving back anything.

This is why everything is behind an API paywall now. This is why XMPP is getting shut down. This is why IMAP is being replaced by proprietary front ends. Why we have DRM in HTML5. Why TiVo did what it did.

Because, well, we let them.

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

#27

Post by katastic »

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 ?

>In fact, he acted like a bounty hunter : chasing wrongdoers ( companies that do not comply with the GPLv2) for his own personal gain

That's like getting mad when lawyers make money suing people who pollute the environment. The companies were still in the wrong.

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

#28

Post by wiz21c »

sametmax wrote: post #19
dizzystar wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

Yup, all of that is strange. Because if enforcement is rare, then a simple risk analysis allows everyone to leech without contributing back. Even more so if the only punishment you may have is "comply" (publishing code that is tied to your own personal hardware is not that much a problem, I think).

Now that everybody knows the true political aim of the GPLv3 and that we know the pragmatism of BSD and others, I wonder under what license would the kernel have been published today...

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

#29

Post by rdtsc »

paulsutter wrote: post #17

If anyone needed another reason to avoid GPL software here you go. I thought the whole idea of open source was to avoid litigious assholes.

> I thought the whole idea of open source was to avoid litigious assholes.

How is that? Not sure what you mean.

Writing everything from scratch in-house is how you usually avoid litigious assholes.

When using someone else's stuff it is a good idea to comply with the licensing terms. That's also a valid strategy to avoid litigation.

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

#30

Post by icebraining »

Hydraulix989 wrote: post #7
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…

Tell that to Richard Stallman.

As others have pointed out, the FSF (founded and headed by Stallman) has the same position.
Post reply on HN