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

31–40 of 92 posts

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

#31

Post by icebraining »

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…

The only thing they demand is to accept the licence.

Well, the problem here is that they're actually demanding a few million euros.

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

#32

Post by icebraining »

sametmax wrote: post #26
greglindahl wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wit…

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.

In what way would a vigorous enforcement of the GPL prevent any of that?

The only even remotely related to the GPL is TiVo, and even then it wasn't lack of enforcement, the version of the license simply didn't prevent it, hence GPLv3.

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

#33

Post by belorn »

detaro wrote: post #3
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 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…

Its hard to say with any amount of certainty what the 15000 developers from practically every country in the world believes in regard to copyright.

FSF and the SF Conservancy is attempting to try to bring a consensus to that issue, but that too is a contentious discussion. Some vocal developers has some views, the Linus Torvald has his, the Linux Foundation has theirs, and not counting everyone else which has a stake in the issue. In general it seems that the overall ecosystem seek compliance but I suspect even the effort to try establishing that as a consensus and have it written down as an official policy of the project would be an uphill battle.

An interesting aspect that this judge brought on is the statement that the 15000 developers should not be considered co-authors of the linux kernel as a whole but rather defined in the German law as "editing authors" with limited rights compared to co-authors. It might mean that Linus, if any, is the only one that can make enforcement for the project as a whole.

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

#35

Post by julienfr112 »

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".

oxymoron, right ? like a benevolent punishment, a liberating constrain ...

Come on, we are in the same boat here, we agree Linux (and Wikipedia and ...) are amazing things. And we all admire and cheer the contributors and so on. Don't be mad when we point a small incoherence. It's like opening an issue, close it if you have a large support of the community, but please, spend 5 minutes thinking about it from a new point a view.

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

#36

Post by older »

shakna wrote: post #14
belltaco wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Could you give an example? Any company that stripped Linux out of their product?

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

#38

Post by afarrell »

forapurpose wrote: post #25
LukeShu wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> deterrent that leads to compliance

Note about general principles: a deterrent needs more than pain to ensure compliance.

* There also needs to be a clear path to compliance. If the subject of a rule isn’t capable of complying, they won’t comply.

* Knowledge about the possibility of violation & penalty needs to be available to the subject.

* There needs to be consistency in what will ensure compliance. Otherwise, the subject is better off taking out insurance, raising their prices, and accepting fines as a cost of business. Or getting out of the situation entirely.

————————-

There is a story from somewhere (possibly the warring states period of pre-Han China?) of a general who was late returning from an engagement.

General: “what is the punishment for lateness?”

Aide: “death.”

General: “and and what is the penalty for mutiny?”

Aide: “also death.”

General: “Well, I suppose mutiny gives us a chance of survival. Summon the captains.”

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

#39

Post by cup-of-tea »

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."…

So, in fact, there's no real way to "fix" the violation for a project like Linux. It could be done with FSF projects because they own the copyright too. But for Linux it would seem the only way to enforce compliance is to make people aware that their licence will be lost forever, and the only way to make them care about that is the threat of legal action from any one of thousands of developers.

Otherwise how else will compliance for Linux be enforced?

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

#40

Post by shdon »

I'll admit this is offtopic, but why on earth do they insist on putting an unrelated video on autoplay at the top of the page? I'm there to read the article and just when I've read the first few sentences, I get distracted by movement and the sound of Linux Torvalds' voice. Something about DRM and GPLv3 which are not at all related to the article contents. Sure, it might be an interesting video, but on autoplay... really?
Post reply on HN