23 Dec
2021
23 Dec
'21
4:14 p.m.
-tuhs +coff
On Wed, Dec 22, 2021 at 1:30 AM <jason-tuhs(a)shalott.net> wrote:
As a vendor or distributor, you would care. Anyone
doing an OS or other
software distribution (think the BSDs, of course;
There is no legal reason why the BSDs can't distribute GPLed software;
indeed, they did so for many years. Their objection is purely ideological.
but also think Apple or
Microsoft) needs to care.
Apple and Microsoft can buy up, outspend, out-lawyer, or just outwait
anyone suing them for infringement. Their only reasons for not doing so
are reputational.
Anyone selling a hardware device with embedded
software (think switches/routers; think IOT devices; think consumer
devices like DVRs; etc) needs to care.
Only if they are determined to infringe. Obeying the GPL's rules (most
often for BusyBox) is straightforward, and the vast majority of infringers
(per the FSF's legal team) are not aware that they have done anything wrong
and are willing to comply once notified, which cures the defect (much less
of a penalty than for most infringements). The ex-infringers do not seem
to consider this a serious competitive disadvantage. GPL licensors are
generous sharers, but you have to be willing to share yourself.
I saw this dynamic in action while working for Reuters; we were licensing
our health-related news to websites, and I would occasionally google for
fragments of our articles. When I found one on a site I didn't recognize,
I'd pass the website to Sales, who would sweetly point out that
infringement could cost them up to $15,000 per article, and for a very
reasonable price.... They were happy to sign up once they were made aware
that just because something is available on the Internet doesn't mean you
can republish it on your site.
GPL (or similar "virally"
licensed) software carries legal implications for
anyone selling or
distributing products that contain such software; and this can be a
motivation to use software with less-restrictive license terms.
Only to the victims of FUD. Reusing source code is one thing: repackaging
programs is another.
I'll say no more about this here.
23 Dec
23 Dec
5:33 p.m.
New subject: [TUHS] ksh88 source code?
On Thu, Dec 23, 2021 at 9:14 AM John Cowan <cowan(a)ccil.org> wrote:
Except it's easier to just use software where there's not a compliance
issue. Regardless of the altruism of the GPL licensors, easier is a
competitive advantage. It's taken about 15 years from the initial busy-box
suits for supply chains to catch up with the proper provenance so that
downstreams know they are getting the proper sources.
GPL (or similar "virally"
Having been on the other side of this (a GPL shakedown that was improper),
I'd say it's more than just FUD.
The GPL is cool and all, but it isn't all roses and sunshine.
Warner
-tuhs +coff
On Wed, Dec 22, 2021 at 1:30 AM <jason-tuhs(a)shalott.net> wrote:
However, not all of our downstreams could, however. So it's also a
practical consideration.
Also, some left over anger from the early days when BSD software would
sometimes have the copyrights removed and be GPL'd. Thankfully, all the old
cases of that were resolved years ago.
Anyone selling a hardware device with embedded
As a vendor or distributor, you would care.
Anyone doing an OS or other
software distribution (think the BSDs, of course;
There is no legal reason why the BSDs can't distribute GPLed software;
indeed, they did so for many years. Their objection is purely ideological.
software
(think switches/routers; think IOT devices; think consumer
devices like DVRs; etc) needs to care.
Only if they are determined to infringe. Obeying the GPL's rules (most
often for BusyBox) is straightforward, and the vast majority of infringers
(per the FSF's legal team) are not aware that they have done anything wrong
and are willing to comply once notified, which cures the defect (much less
of a penalty than for most infringements). The ex-infringers do not seem
to consider this a serious competitive disadvantage. GPL licensors are
generous sharers, but you have to be willing to share yourself.
licensed)
software carries legal implications for anyone selling or
distributing products that contain such software; and this can be a
motivation to use software with less-restrictive license terms.
Only to the victims of FUD. Reusing source code is one thing: repackaging
programs is another.
5:44 p.m.
New subject: [TUHS] ksh88 source code?
On Thu, Dec 23, 2021 at 10:33:29AM -0700, Warner Losh wrote:
The GPL is cool and all, but it isn't all roses
and sunshine.
+100%. The FSF has a nasty habit of just taking over GPLed software and
acting like they produced. Groff is an example, there are lots of others.
The GPL is fine, the FSF is pretty corrupt in my opinion.
6:18 p.m.
New subject: [TUHS] ksh88 source code?
On Thu, Dec 23, 2021 at 12:44 PM Larry McVoy <lm(a)mcvoy.com> wrote:
+100%. The FSF has a nasty habit of just taking over GPLed software and
acting like they produced. Groff is an example, there
are lots of others.
How's that? James Clark donated the groff copyright to the FSF in
1991, and they released it under the GPL 1.0 or later (since upgraded).
It's as much theirs as any software is anybody's.
855
days inactive
855
days old
3 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
John Cowan -
Larry McVoy -
Warner Losh