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

Thesis and the GPL

andrewnacin.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 24 posts

Re: Thesis and the GPL

#11

Post by losethos »

hristov wrote: post #9
sscheper wrote: post #4

Is it a crime to put your life into creating something, marketing it extremely well, attracting a ton of avid fans/users, and deciding that he or she doesn't want others undercutting the price?

No. Copyright infringement is a crime, however.

Christians are not under the law but they're not stupid.

19 13 14 Why, then, the law? It was added for transgressions, until the descendant came to whom the promise had been made; it was promulgated by angels at the hand of a mediator. 20 Now there is no mediator when only one party is involved, and God is one. 21 Is the law then opposed to the promises (of God)? Of course not! For if a law had been given that could bring life, then righteousness would in reality come from the law. 22 But scripture confined all things under the power of sin, that through faith in Jesus Christ the promise might be given to those who believe. 23 15 Before faith came, we were held in custody under law, confined for the faith that was to be revealed. 24 Consequently, the law was our disciplinarian 16 for Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a disciplinarian. 26 For through faith you are all children of God 17 in Christ Jesus.

Re: Thesis and the GPL

#12

Post by simonw »

sscheper wrote: post #4

Is it a crime to put your life into creating something, marketing it extremely well, attracting a ton of avid fans/users, and deciding that he or she doesn't want others undercutting the price?

Is it moral to make money from other people's work against both their wishes and the terms of their license?

Re: Thesis and the GPL

#13

Post by carbocation »

mgunes wrote: post #10
hristov wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Copyright infringement is a crime, however.

Arguably pedantic note: under most jurisdictions, copyright infringement is a non-criminal offense in civil law.

To be equally pedantic but in a more geographically limited fashion: in the US, there are criminal copyright statutes. =)

Re: Thesis and the GPL

#14

Post by hristov »

mgunes wrote: post #10
hristov wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Copyright infringement is a crime, however.

Arguably pedantic note: under most jurisdictions, copyright infringement is a non-criminal offense in civil law.

It is a crime under US federal law, as well the laws of most industrialised countries. However, you are right in a way in that not all copyright infringement is a crime under US law.

Re: Thesis and the GPL

#15

Post by cheald »

sscheper wrote: post #4

Is it a crime to put your life into creating something, marketing it extremely well, attracting a ton of avid fans/users, and deciding that he or she doesn't want others undercutting the price?

If you violate a license as the foundation of that work? Not a crime, but certainly a civil violation of said license. Thesis' author has ignored the terms of the license of the software that he used in the construction of his own software, but ignorance does not merit pardon. Thesis, by inclusion of GPL code, is required to be licensed under the GPL. Failure to do so is unlicensed usage of the code; ie, copyright infringement. Either he is in violation of copyright by using code outside of the license, or he is in violation of the license by not GPLing Thesis itself. Either way, the author is in breach of someone's rights, and Thesis, as a work, may only be legally distributed under a GPL license.

I can't say I blame him for putting up a fight, since it's his bread-and-butter and GPLing it would cut his financial knees out from under him, but it's not even a debate at this point whether or not GPL code is included in Thesis. This is a fight that he can't win.

Re: Thesis and the GPL

#16

Post by cheald »

hristov wrote: post #8
joshkaufman wrote: post #2

There's a straightforward way to resolve this once and for all: if Thesis is indeed GPL, then it doesn't matter what license Pearson uses - anyone can legally copy/distribute/modify/fork/sell Thesis publicly right now , even if Pearson continues to opine that the code is distributed under a different licence. GPL is GPL. Pearson will most likely sue the first person who actually does this (and refuses the Cease-and-D…

It does not actually work like this. I am sure Thesis does include at least some original (i.e., not previously GPLed) work. Thus, the person that created that original work is the proper copyright holder. Thus, if you copy Thesis you will be guilty of copyright infringement, and the fact that it does include some GPL code won't help you. As the matter now stands, if it is true that they use GPLed code, that means th…

I was about to argue this, but the more I thought about it, I agree with it.

To put it as I understand it, using GPL code doesn't automatically make your code GPL; it places a legal requirement on you to either license your code as GPL, or to not distribute the source or product. If the author doesn't license his software, then nobody else can take and use it, but the author is in violation of copyright due to the unlicensed use of GPL code.

The virality of the GPL is a requirement of the license, not an automatic effect upon using GPL code.

Re: Thesis and the GPL

#17

Post by wzdd »

joshkaufman wrote: post #2

There's a straightforward way to resolve this once and for all: if Thesis is indeed GPL, then it doesn't matter what license Pearson uses - anyone can legally copy/distribute/modify/fork/sell Thesis publicly right now , even if Pearson continues to opine that the code is distributed under a different licence. GPL is GPL. Pearson will most likely sue the first person who actually does this (and refuses the Cease-and-D…

People are taking issue with the specific legal test you're proposing, but the fact that you are proposing a legal test as a way of resolving the issue is very sensible. This is a legal issue, and it should be tested using the law.

Unfortunately, or fortunately, this doesn't seem to be the way suspected GPL violations are resolved. More frequently there is a community consensus and a public shaming of the responsible company (e.g. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=790316). The issue then becomes one of how much negative publicity the company is willing to take.

IOW although "GPL violations" are described in legal terms, could be legally tested, and refer to legal documents, the issue of illegality takes second place to a fuzzier issue of "fairness", which changes from community to community and project to project.

Re: Thesis and the GPL

#18

Post by [deleted] »

ekiru wrote: post #5
joshkaufman wrote: post #2

There's a straightforward way to resolve this once and for all: if Thesis is indeed GPL, then it doesn't matter what license Pearson uses - anyone can legally copy/distribute/modify/fork/sell Thesis publicly right now , even if Pearson continues to opine that the code is distributed under a different licence. GPL is GPL. Pearson will most likely sue the first person who actually does this (and refuses the Cease-and-D…

I think that this is a misconception that results from the frequent failure of people to make the distinction verbally between "Thesis is legally required to be GPL if redistributed" and "Thesis is GPL". I expect most of the people who make this mistake are aware of the distinction and are simply using "Thesis is GPL" as shorthand for "Thesis is required to be GPL", but it leads to confusion as in your comment. IANAL…

[deleted]

Re: Thesis and the GPL

#19

Post by jp_sc »

ekiru wrote: post #5
joshkaufman wrote: post #2

There's a straightforward way to resolve this once and for all: if Thesis is indeed GPL, then it doesn't matter what license Pearson uses - anyone can legally copy/distribute/modify/fork/sell Thesis publicly right now , even if Pearson continues to opine that the code is distributed under a different licence. GPL is GPL. Pearson will most likely sue the first person who actually does this (and refuses the Cease-and-D…

I think that this is a misconception that results from the frequent failure of people to make the distinction verbally between "Thesis is legally required to be GPL if redistributed" and "Thesis is GPL". I expect most of the people who make this mistake are aware of the distinction and are simply using "Thesis is GPL" as shorthand for "Thesis is required to be GPL", but it leads to confusion as in your comment. IANAL…

The clause 5 of the GPL v2 says:

    5. You are not required to accept this License, since
    you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants 
    you permission to modify or distribute the Program or 
    its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by 
    law if you do not accept this License. **Therefore, by 
    modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based 
    on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this 
    License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for 
    copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works 
    based on it.**
IANAL but it looks like Thesis could be implicitly GPL'ed.

Re: Thesis and the GPL

#20

Post by bad_user »

jp_sc wrote: post #19
ekiru wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that this is a misconception that results from the frequent failure of people to make the distinction verbally between "Thesis is legally required to be GPL if redistributed" and "Thesis is GPL". I expect most of the people who make this mistake are aware of the distinction and are simply using "Thesis is GPL" as shorthand for "Thesis is required to be GPL", but it leads to confusion as in your comment. IANAL…

The clause 5 of the GPL v2 says: 5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. **Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this Licens…

You have to prove first that Thesis is a derivate work ... it might seem obvious to some, but it's better to ask a real lawyer or at the very least people with adequate paralegal experience ;)
Post reply on HN