251–260 of 299 posts
I support Hellwig and the Conservancy in their claim, but I see an unfortunate consequence: This further hinders corporate adoption of open source software. This lawsuit reinforce the corporate legal mindset that "use of open source invites litigation...".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Implicit is that I believe commercial software can exist while still being free.
How so? Commercial -support-, perhaps. Butt in not sure how offering to sell software that is free I'd any business model. And that's my point, Stallman absolutely DOES want to kill commercial software (as is this right)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wait, Microsoft is distributing and loading GPL'ed kernel modules for windows? I did not even know windows kernel had modules, and even less so that they distribute and use third-party developed gplv2 modules. Are Microsoft shipping this with windows 7, windows 8, or windows server 2012, and is there a list somewhere for the shipped modules?
Since the comment you were responding to has been deleted, I'm not sure if my comment will clarify anything for you. But it is possible, so here goes: > Wait, Microsoft is distributing and loading GPL'ed kernel modules for windows? A few years ago, the Linux kernel project accepted several patches from Microsoft that were meant to make it easier to run Linux in a VM hosted on a Windows machine ( http://www.dwheeler.c…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Section 6 does not say that at all. "Each time you redistribute the Program" In this sentence "You" would be VMWare, not the authors of Linux. "the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy" the Linux license is between Linux authors and recipients of VMWare software . So section 6 does not say Vmware gets a new license each time they get a copy of Linux. Section 6 just makes sure…
So what happens if VMWare downloads a new copy of the software from some third party (Redhat or whatever)?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> [...] the argument parent post made is that the threat of enforcing third-party licenses will make every company switch to self-production only. Note this problem only applies (in practice) to GPL licenses which are explicitly disallowed in all gaming environments I have encountered. As such the problem is moot. There are lots of Open Source code in computer games, just not GPL. It's a non issue.
How would this problem only apply to GPL? If you do not give the 5% revenue to unreal when using their engine, I am sure they will sue. A company can not pick and choose which license agreement to follow and which to ignore, or they risk inoperation from lawsuits. In practice, license conditions are balanced to the interest of the company. Some might be perfectly fine with 5% revenue losses in order to pay for a engi…
* Most of the time commercial libraries like unreal make a distinction between interface and implementation. In the worst case you could swap out their implementation and reimplement the methods you use, which will be expensive but at least at the end of it you'll have a clean codebase that you own. With GPLed code even that might not be enough - you could replace the GPLed implementation and your codebase might still be a derivative work of the GPLed library. * Epic is a profit-making business with obligations to their shareholders; ultimately resolving any issue with them is going to be "only" a matter of money, it's not in their interests for your company to go out of business. An individual GPL copyrightholder is more likely to be idealistic/spiteful about it. And GPLed libraries often have several copyrightholders, multiplying the risk.
VMWare: stop this and release the code on GPL v2. It is just old code. And also, recognize the mistake. Period.
This is not old code. This is the kernel of ESXi 5.5 (Their current product) and its highly likely that ESXi 6.0 has the same problem. This is not old code, it is the heart of their product offerings.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So what happens if VMWare downloads a new copy of the software from some third party (Redhat or whatever)?
They do not get a license, so they couldn't even legally download the new copy. It's the same as downloading pirated Windows (except that when downloading pirated Windows the hosting site shares the blame with the downloader, of course).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What a bizarre world we live in where willful violations of a legally binding license (a license which attempts to keep knowledge in the open) is considered nothing more than a "calculated risk."
Every time you speed on the freeway, you're willfully violating the law, and taking a calculated risk that you won't get caught. No?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What a bizarre world we live in where willful violations of a legally binding license (a license which attempts to keep knowledge in the open) is considered nothing more than a "calculated risk."
I'm sure you've never jaywalked or littered or sped in a car and thought to yourself "there's no way i'll get in trouble for this so i'll do it anyway". Except in VMware's case they are much large than a single person so their list of "low risk" crimes is larger.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So what happens if VMWare downloads a new copy of the software from some third party (Redhat or whatever)?
They do not get a license, so they couldn't even legally download the new copy. It's the same as downloading pirated Windows (except that when downloading pirated Windows the hosting site shares the blame with the downloader, of course).