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

31–39 of 39 posts

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

#31

Post by crankylinuxuser »

kuschku wrote: post #29
throwaway2048 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And that shit needs to stop now.

If I want to bloody recompile the LK on my phone to install a proper linux, that or other GPL tools shouldn't be blockers.

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

#32

Post by bonzini »

crankylinuxuser wrote: post #30
Ajedi32 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

They don't do free software. FSF and Conservancy are trying to keep the moral high ground.

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

#33

Post by crankylinuxuser »

bonzini wrote: post #32
crankylinuxuser wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

They don't do free software. FSF and Conservancy are trying to keep the moral high ground.

I will concede that point for one class of violators.

There's from what I see, 2 groups of GPL (and related) license violators. The first are unintentional ones. They didn't realize, for one reason or another, the ramifications of the GPL. Or, they just don't have a license but it's on Git(Hub/Lab). These people, if it is mentioned to, will fix it.

You have the second group, that sells corporate, closed source hardware, with closed source linux kernel and associated GPL'ed tools. These care not for licenses, and would violate anything and everything for a nickel. They are bad actors, willing to do anything to disadvantage any suckers. Look no further than pretty much every Android phone vendor, Orange Pi, Banana Pi, and lots others.

Intent is 90% of the law. I'm certainly willing to let the 10% drop (the action), but its clear whom is and isn't well meaning and who is a bad actor. Making a pile of money and intentionally breaking the license and copyright is usually a pretty strong indicator.

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

#34

Post by bsder »

ajross wrote: post #26
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 e…

> In practice, though, the GPL has mostly just managed to scare companies into using the Apache license for stuff they want to release.

So? I see this as a good thing.

It's not like there is a shortage of BSD, MIT, Apache, et al., licensed code.

GPL code should be treated like radioactive or toxic material--you need a permit, legal approval, and you had better have a REALLY good reason. There are reasons why you might need to use it, but they should be few and very far between.

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

#35

Post by sametmax »

bonzini wrote: post #32
crankylinuxuser wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

They don't do free software. FSF and Conservancy are trying to keep the moral high ground.

The problem with moral is that it's in the eye of the beholder. While legal is described very clearly on paper.

And how is it moral to be nice with immoral people ?

Now I do believe it's good to let a chance to do the right thing. But if not, it must be followed by actions.

E.G: I would add to the licence that it is illegal to give technical support or to provide a commercial service related to the product with a violated licence, for all the product with the same licence. If you can't get support for any of your linux servers, or you can't even rent a new VPS, you'll think twice about compliance.

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

#36

Post by LukeShu »

crankylinuxuser wrote: post #30
Ajedi32 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The licenses used by Oracle, Microsoft, and friends are there to protect the monetary interests of Oracle, Microsoft, and friends. So, when you are caught violating the license, they offer to make their license good, conditioned on you serving their monetary interest.

The licenses used by the FSF are there to protect the liberty of users. So, when you are caught violating the license, they offer to make their license good, conditioned on you restoring the users' liberty.

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

#37

Post by crankylinuxuser »

LukeShu wrote: post #36
crankylinuxuser wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The licenses used by Oracle, Microsoft, and friends are there to protect the monetary interests of Oracle, Microsoft, and friends. So, when you are caught violating the license, they offer to make their license good, conditioned on you serving their monetary interest. The licenses used by the FSF are there to protect the liberty of users. So, when you are caught violating the license, they offer to make their license…

Yes, and the liberty of the users (read: the price the developers would be if having to replace the violated code) is worth that much.

How much is a team of developers for a month? So yeah, that's real money and time.

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

#39

Post by bonzini »

crankylinuxuser wrote: post #33
bonzini wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't do free software. FSF and Conservancy are trying to keep the moral high ground.

I will concede that point for one class of violators. There's from what I see, 2 groups of GPL (and related) license violators. The first are unintentional ones. They didn't realize, for one reason or another, the ramifications of the GPL. Or, they just don't have a license but it's on Git(Hub/Lab). These people, if it is mentioned to, will fix it. You have the second group, that sells corporate, closed source hardwa…

You only have 60 days to be compliant for your license to be reinstated. The ilks of Allwinner have failed to comply for years, and are outside the scope of the "GPLv2 safeguard" that's the topic here.
Post reply on HN