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

The ability to correct errors in GPLv2 compliance: the right thing to do

redhat.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 39 posts

Re: The ability to correct errors in GPLv2 compliance: the right thing to do

#21

Post by _ph_ »

gpm wrote: post #16

I don't think this is a good thing. The GPL is a tool to scare companies into doing the right thing and releasing their code. By committing to this we lose the ability to scare those companies. It becomes much more worthwhile to play chicken hoping no one will notice that you are using GPL code in your closed source binary.

Not all GPL violations are done in bad faith. So in many cases, it is better to give offenders the ability to fix the problem rather than revoking their license perpetually. Scaring is not a great tactic, if you really want more people to use open source code.

Re: The ability to correct errors in GPLv2 compliance: the right thing to do

#22

Post by LukeShu »

toyg wrote: post #5
wyldfire wrote: post #2

> The cure rights offer additional comfort that users of GPLv2 code have reasonable assurances of quiet use of that code, even if there is a temporary license noncompliance due to ambiguity, misunderstanding or otherwise. We also believe that community adoption of these rights will reduce the opportunity for copyright trolling. It's hard to understand the problem being solved here. While I've heard of "patent trollin…

> Are there copyright holders engaging in abusive litigation? Some enforcement efforts have been controversial, particularly the VmWare suit and other efforts by SFConservancy. I wouldn't call them trolls, but a lot of people think they are too heavy-handed. On the other hand, with nobody wielding a stick, there is no real incentive not to abuse free licenses - which is exactly why the GPL exists in the first place.

The SF Conservancy has always done exactly what CA/Cisco/HPE/Microsoft/SAP/SUSE are now pledging to do. It's part of their Principles of Community-Oriented GPL Enforcement.

Whether or not you think they are too heavy-handed, or think they are trolls: SF Conservancy-like behavior isn't the type of behavior being addressed here.

Re: The ability to correct errors in GPLv2 compliance: the right thing to do

#23

Post by wongarsu »

sgift wrote: post #3

"The right thing to do" from a programmers perspective is to never use any dependency which uses anything with *GPL as its license if they can use something else instead. Sometimes, the only viable option is licensed under one of these licenses and then you have to look very carefully and probably involve legal support, but for all the other cases life gets far easier if you just don't use such dependencies and take…

    anything with *GPL as its license
AGPL is obviously even stricter than the GPL, but I don't see the problem with LGPL in libraries? Worst case you end up making some improvements to the library that are applicable outside your application and have to publish the source for your changes to the library, but that seems only fair. In the vast majority of cases you don't modify library code, leaving you with no obligation.

You might run the risk of somebody copy-pasting code from a LGPL library into your production system, but I don't think that risk is greater than the risk of them copy-pasting from the first google result without checking the license.

Re: The ability to correct errors in GPLv2 compliance: the right thing to do

#24

Post by s73v3r_ »

sgift wrote: post #3

"The right thing to do" from a programmers perspective is to never use any dependency which uses anything with *GPL as its license if they can use something else instead. Sometimes, the only viable option is licensed under one of these licenses and then you have to look very carefully and probably involve legal support, but for all the other cases life gets far easier if you just don't use such dependencies and take…

"The right thing to do" from a programmers perspective"

Is to follow the license for whatever you're using. Full stop.

Re: The ability to correct errors in GPLv2 compliance: the right thing to do

#25

Post by bluGill »

gpm wrote: post #16

I don't think this is a good thing. The GPL is a tool to scare companies into doing the right thing and releasing their code. By committing to this we lose the ability to scare those companies. It becomes much more worthwhile to play chicken hoping no one will notice that you are using GPL code in your closed source binary.

No, without this it goes to court. A court will already accept good faith arguments, but absent any good faith clause the court gets to decide what that means. By having a good faith clause the license can control better what happens when the court would determine good faith applys.

Re: The ability to correct errors in GPLv2 compliance: the right thing to do

#26

Post by ajross »

gpm wrote: post #16

I don't think this is a good thing. The GPL is a tool to scare companies into doing the right thing and releasing their code. By committing to this we lose the ability to scare those companies. It becomes much more worthwhile to play chicken hoping no one will notice that you are using GPL code in your closed source binary.

In practice, though, the GPL has mostly just managed to scare companies into using the Apache license for stuff they want to release. GPL violations are typically done by smaller actors without malice: little companies rushing products out the door, or integrators shipping stuff without a clear picture of the software license.

At this point in history I don't think free software has much to fear from a more lenient enforcement of copyleft. The real risk is that copyleft (IMHO a really great tool even absent the "scare companies" analysis) will be forgotten.

Re: The ability to correct errors in GPLv2 compliance: the right thing to do

#28

Post by yarrel »

sgift wrote: post #10
throwaway2048 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its the right thing to do if you are interested in people using your code, making money off of it, and not contributing anything back. Lots of people are not interested in this.

You seem to talk about what license to chose for your own libraries as a library developer. I didn't comment on that.

"libraries"

Re: The ability to correct errors in GPLv2 compliance: the right thing to do

#29

Post by kuschku »

throwaway2048 wrote: post #7
toyg wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are there copyright holders engaging in abusive litigation? Some enforcement efforts have been controversial, particularly the VmWare suit and other efforts by SFConservancy. I wouldn't call them trolls, but a lot of people think they are too heavy-handed. On the other hand, with nobody wielding a stick, there is no real incentive not to abuse free licenses - which is exactly why the GPL exists in the first place.

How are they too heavily handed? the only thing they ask for in negotiation and lawsuits is GPL compliance, they dont demand money, or anything else. If following the license is too much to ask for, what exactly does "not heavy handed" mean?

> If following the license is too much to ask for, what exactly does "not heavy handed" mean?

The "enforcement" that Torvalds wants is what you see with Android today: Everyone ships blobs of kernel builds, with the source never released.

Re: The ability to correct errors in GPLv2 compliance: the right thing to do

#30

Post by crankylinuxuser »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #4
wyldfire wrote: post #2

> The cure rights offer additional comfort that users of GPLv2 code have reasonable assurances of quiet use of that code, even if there is a temporary license noncompliance due to ambiguity, misunderstanding or otherwise. We also believe that community adoption of these rights will reduce the opportunity for copyright trolling. It's hard to understand the problem being solved here. While I've heard of "patent trollin…

Probably a response to this incident: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16562525

And pray tell me what Oracle, Microsoft, and the friends in the BSA do if you're caught violating the terms of the license?

Do they kindly ask for apology? Do they offer, at cost, to make their licenses good? Are they a good steward when they find license mishaps? Or, why should Free Software foundations accept this against companies making decisions to cheat all of us?

Post reply on HN