Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by gpm 3018 days ago
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.
5 comments
LukeShu 3018 days ago
I disagree--I firmly believe that this is a good thing.

If Foo Corp intentionally/accidentally violates the GPLv2 on software owned by CA/Cisco/HPE/Microsoft/SAP/SUSE, but decides to do the right thing/come clean and release the code...

without this (plain GPLv2): Their license to the GPLv2 was revoked, is still revoked, and are liable to each of the owners. Even if one owner reinstates the license, the others don't have to.

with this (GPLv2 with GPLv3-cure): Their license is provisionally reinstated upon coming in to compliance, and permanently reinstated 60 days later if none of the copyright holders object.

With the plain GPLv2 it was worth it to play chicken. Now, it no longer is.

link
_ph_ 3018 days ago
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.
link
ajross 3018 days ago
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.

link
bsder 3018 days ago
> 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.

link
bluGill 3018 days ago
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.
link
eitland 3018 days ago
IMO you underestimate the effort of rewriting released software in a shirt timeframe, especially software running on premise.
link