Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by ksk 3149 days ago
> The GPL is only a legal problem if you are trying to skirt the rules and distribute proprietary software but use GPL components.

Well, a random developer can't simply assert it - you need lawyers to make sure you really are conforming to the GPL. With BSD, you don't. This is simply the ground reality.
1 comments
madez 3149 days ago
That is not true. If a company does not follow the GPL and is called out, they can simply do what the GPL tells them to do and the case is done.
link
ksk 3149 days ago
>That is not true.

What are you basing this on? Personal experience? Speculation? Other?

>If a company does not follow the GPL and is called out, they can simply do what the GPL tells them to do and the case is done.

Ask Cisco if the lawsuit from the FSF was fictional.

I was involved with the GPL license a few years back when I was consulting on an embedded hardware device product. We wrote to the developer and requested them to re-license the software in exchange for a payment. They refused and we decided to use a differently licensed product in the end, based on legal advice.

link
madez 3149 days ago
>>> you need lawyers to make sure you really are conforming to the GPL.

>> That is not true.

> What are you basing this on? Personal experience? Speculation? Other?

The FSF and SFLC use litigation as a _last resort_, when the offender does not cooperate to alleviate the breach of the GPL [See below]. The Linux community is also largely against litigation [https://lwn.net/Articles/698452/].

>> If a company does not follow the GPL and is called out, they can simply do what the GPL tells them to do and the case is done.

> Ask Cisco if the lawsuit from the FSF was fictional.

The FSF tried before to work with Cisco to comply with the GPL:

“In the fifteen years we’ve spent enforcing our licenses, we’ve never gone to court before. While litigation is a last resort, we’re prepared to take the legal action necessary to defend users’ freedoms. With SFLC’s help, the FSF is able to take effective action,” said Peter Brown, executive director of FSF.

from http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2008/dec/11/cisco-lawsui...

> I was involved with the GPL license a few years back when I was consulting on an embedded hardware device product. We wrote to the developer and requested them to re-license the software in exchange for a payment. They refused and we decided to use a differently licensed product in the end, based on legal advice.

I don't know your situation so I can't comment on it. Maybe your business model depended on your users not having control about the software they use. Because in that case the GPL is a problem.

link
davexunit 3149 days ago
So you wanted to write proprietary software on top of someone's GPL code, the developer couldn't be swayed by money, so now you are bitter about it? Talk about entitlement.
link
ksk 3149 days ago
>So you wanted to write proprietary software on top of someone's GPL code,

Incorrect.

> the developer couldn't be swayed by money,

Incorrect. We made the request on the basis of legal advice to avoid licensing trouble. These are real things that happened on a real project. The idea that lawyers are never involved when using GPL'd code is a fantasy.

In any case, the reason the developer refused is because there were multiple contributors on the project, and it would have created a headache for them.

>so now you are bitter about it?

Incorrect.

>Talk about entitlement.

So rude. Wow..

link