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

71–80 of 92 posts

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

#71

Post by ceejayoz »

rdtsc wrote: post #29
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.

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

Nah, that just gets you a patent suit.

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

#72

Post by paulsutter »

antonvs wrote: post #24
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 GP…

Oh really? Have you ever been involved in litigation? Cases are presented based on arcane points and decided by a nontechnical jury. Trial lawyers focus on jury selection and aren’t interested in facts. Even egregiously false nuisance cases get settled because of reputational risk and cost of litigation.

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

#73

Post by zentiggr »

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/

I'm not sure I'd use the phrase "never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy", but I've not visited a ZDNet site knowingly for a long time. Been pulling hijinks since their very early days.

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

#74

Post by emiliobumachar »

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 ?

Quoting from another top-level comment:

"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."

The FSF would be disinterested in the spread of this sort of thinking. That's a good reason against letting bounty hunters loose.

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

#75

Post by rootusrootus »

I am probably missing something here, as usual, but this does not really sound like a clear win. Is the Linux community effectively enforcing compliance with the GPL? I sort of understand how someone could see individual litigation to be a threat to the ecosystem, but doesn't that assume that we value usage more than compliance? Isn't it also a threat to the ecosystem if developers decide not to contribute because they feel their code will just get stolen for commercial profit?

Maybe this makes more sense if the vast majority of kernel developers are commercially funded and not volunteers.

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

#76

Post by boomlinde »

dizzystar wrote: post #51
boomlinde wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. It makes perfect sense to sue a company that fails to comply with the license. What doesn't make sense is for anyone with a two line contribution to the kernel to sue anyone for not complying wit…

I agree in some sense. My issue is pulling the trigger to fast and too hard, and there doesn't seem to be a good answer to that. Even though I do my best to follow licenses, I may be making a mistake somewhere. If I heard a case where was sued for $1M to a GPLv2 software, I'd strongly consider moving over to a propriety product and pay $10 a month to mitigate my risk. Remember that every uninstall is one less user, w…

> Even though I do my best to follow licenses, I may be making a mistake somewhere.

There are plenty of resources available on how to comply and how to setup a process to minimize this risk. Simply dump all the versions and licenses of third party software you use to a file and accompany your distribution with a written offer to share the source code or links to their official repositories if they are unmodified.

> If I heard a case where was sued for $1M to a GPLv2 software, I'd strongly consider moving over to a propriety product and pay $10 a month to mitigate my risk.

You're considering this from the perspective of an end user? Let me clarify that the limitations of GPLv2 kick into effect once you distribute software. As far as respecting copyright goes, you can use GPL software and modify it freely without any legal forethought. It's when you distribute such software that you'd get in trouble by not also sharing the source code.

In fact, this is better for the consumer, who will be able to use the bundled GPLv2 licensed software without buying the product.

> Remember that every uninstall is one less user, which is one less incentive to maintain the product, and once that gets close to zero, it's game over.

This implies that the amount of users is the only incentive when it really is not, For one, some users are more important than other users. Companies like Intel, Google, IBM, SUSE, Red Hat and AMD are important users in that they also make significant contributions to the kernel for their own benefit. There is a huge incentive for these to contribute back even if they don't need to distribute their changes because getting it into the mainline kernel simplifies maintenance. Whether some Shenzhen set top box that violates the GPL uses Linux doesn't make a difference. If anything, their continued illicit use detracts from the credibility of the license and discourages contributors that give a hoot about people respecting their individual property and the overall philosophy of free software. Then, particularly for smaller projects than the kernel, there are the individual contributors who are usually users of the software they contribute to.

I think you've maybe made the connection "users == customers" where there is none. In those terms, companies that ignore free software licenses are simply pirates.

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

#77

Post by juliangoldsmith »

rootusrootus wrote: post #75

I am probably missing something here, as usual, but this does not really sound like a clear win. Is the Linux community effectively enforcing compliance with the GPL? I sort of understand how someone could see individual litigation to be a threat to the ecosystem, but doesn't that assume that we value usage more than compliance? Isn't it also a threat to the ecosystem if developers decide not to contribute because th…

What I got from this article is that the guy was basically trying to extort money from companies that hadn't complied in the past.

This particular company fixed their compliance issues, and Patrick McHardy still went after them once they had. He did so while hiding it from other kernel developers, and kept all of the money for himself.

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

#78

Post by vbezhenar »

shakna wrote: post #61
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you think by not punishing such companies then they'll come in to compliance? It strikes me such companies never intended to comply with their legal obligations - make that position financially untenable and use the money to support development/developers who are compliant.

That's not my position either. Most companies will see a lawsuit as an attack, and blacklist interacting with you in the future if they can. It reflects badly on the FOSS community, and makes future interactions even more difficult. There are a lot of businesses that will fight relying on any FOSS product, but leap at precisely the same thing with a paid license. However, more polite requests usually get canned witho…

When Microsoft sues companies for using pirate Windows, they extort extra fines and payments and put people in jail. It doesn't seem to hurt them. FSF position is weak. If you're not fighting with claws and teethes, strong ones won't respect you, they'll continue to abuse you just to "comply" if they got caught and sued.

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

#79

Post by [deleted] »

larkeith wrote: post #5

Unless 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.

[deleted]

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

#80

Post by [deleted] »

ceejayoz wrote: post #71
rdtsc wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> Writing everything from scratch in-house is how you usually avoid litigious assholes. Nah, that just gets you a patent suit.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN