Advertisement
Front, Kernel, Security, Distributions, Development. See your byline here on LWN.net.
| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
A new source of anti-GPL FUDA new source of anti-GPL FUDPosted Nov 21, 2003 16:44 UTC (Fri) by TwoTimeGrime (guest, #11688)Parent article: A new source of anti-GPL FUD
> "Your employee could grab a piece of open-source code off the So? That sounds like a problem with the employee not the software license. What's your employee doing putting other people's source code into your proprietary product anyway? If you want to use other people's code, then you must do so based on the terms they use to license it to you. I'd expect better from lawyers.
(Log in to post comments)
A new source of anti-GPL FUD Posted Nov 21, 2003 17:35 UTC (Fri) by stanmuffin (guest, #16955) [Link] The FSF clearly isn't going to force you to open-source your $50k application against your will. You'll get the chance to remove GPL'd code from your product and fire the employee who put it there. The FSF is not SCO.
A new source of anti-GPL FUD Posted Nov 21, 2003 18:31 UTC (Fri) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] For interesting, definitive info about FSF's GPL enforcement, see this talk:http://media.april.org/audio/RMLL-2003/fixed/David-Turner.ogg by FSF's GPL compliance engineer.
A new source of anti-GPL FUD Posted Nov 21, 2003 20:20 UTC (Fri) by TwoTimeGrime (guest, #11688) [Link] The FSF doens't have anything to do with it unless the GPL code that was included was copyrighted by the FSF. If you included GPL'd code and the copyright holder of that code was someone other than the FSF then you'll have to work out a deal with them. If they demand that you make source available, then you've got a problem.
A new source of anti-GPL FUD Posted Nov 22, 2003 10:30 UTC (Sat) by dmantione (guest, #4640) [Link] Not really. If you combine GPL code with non-GPL code you violate copyright. Makingthe rest of your source code is a solution to solve the copyright violation. Copyright violation is in principle a criminal act. However, you do not go to jail for accidentally including GPL code in your product. Unless you refuse to take out the code, there is nothing to fear here. In addition, the copyright holder usually has had (financial) damage because of the copyright violation. In a civil procedure he can demand the pirate to compensate the damage. Now, I think the only damage you have when someone steals your GPL code is the money that you would earn by writing that code at normal payment rates. The "pirate" would have to pay that. In other words, there is no legal requirement to make the rest of your source GPL, it is just a legal solution, but by removing the code and paying the damages, it is not strictly necessary to do so.
A new source of anti-GPL FUD Posted Nov 24, 2003 23:56 UTC (Mon) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] > Copyright violation is in principle a criminal act.That is not true. Criminal infringement only applies under certain circumstances, as per Title 17, U.S. Copyright Law: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506
A new source of anti-GPL FUD Posted Nov 21, 2003 20:27 UTC (Fri) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] > "Your employee could grab a piece of open-source code off the> Internet and you no longer have a proprietary product. Your > $50,000 software package is now worth zero" "I'd expect better from lawyers." This are not lawyers, this are bandits!... They are stating that there should be laws that permit the stealing of open-code into a proprietary for profit project!... I mean, its the only valid conclusion that you can achieve... and really reveals how filthy the "Ma$ter" is...
A new source of anti-GPL FUD Posted Nov 22, 2003 9:57 UTC (Sat) by petegn (guest, #847) [Link] > "Your employee could grab a piece of open-source code off the> Internet and you no longer have a proprietary product. Your > $50,000 software package is now worth zero".... Yes but what a brilliant way of screwing up the employer that has been a total arse wipe and pain in the butt... not the nicest way to utilise the GPL but could be goo for a laugh.. Pete.
A new source of anti-GPL FUD Posted Nov 22, 2003 19:02 UTC (Sat) by rev (guest, #15082) [Link] MS and SCO are not the most reliable sources of information on the GPL and its implications.
|
|
||||||||||||