The ability to correct errors in GPLv2 compliance: the right thing to do
1–10 of 39 posts
Re: The ability to correct errors in GPLv2 compliance: the right thing to do
#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 trolling" I guess I've only thought of copyright trolling in the sense of the (poorly tested) automatons who issue DMCA takedown requests for audio/video on youtube.
I've heard about GPL enforcement but only in "good" context: copyright holders acting in good faith to get their licensees to comply with the license. Are there copyright holders engaging in abusive litigation?
Re: The ability to correct errors in GPLv2 compliance: the right thing to do
#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 something with a less restrictive license.
Re: The ability to correct errors in GPLv2 compliance: the right thing to do
#4> 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
Re: The ability to correct errors in GPLv2 compliance: the right thing to do
#5> 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.
Re: The ability to correct errors in GPLv2 compliance: the right thing to do
#6"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…
If you're not writing code that you yourself intend to make open, then this is actually what the GPL "wants" you to do.
Re: The ability to correct errors in GPLv2 compliance: the right thing to do
#7> 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.
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?
Re: The ability to correct errors in GPLv2 compliance: the right thing to do
#8"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 is to just make the source available when the license requires you to do so. It's not that hard. If in doubt, just make it available.
Re: The ability to correct errors in GPLv2 compliance: the right thing to do
#9"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…
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.
Re: The ability to correct errors in GPLv2 compliance: the right thing to do
#10"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…
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.