A new source of anti-GPL FUD [LWN.net]

A new source of anti-GPL FUD

Posted Nov 22, 2003 13:51 UTC (Sat) by rev (guest, #15082) [Link]

I still don't understand what you you are trying to say here. Please explain.

Would the situation be any diferent if this nice software package was released under, say, the X11 license? Or released in binary only form?

I may be stupid but I honoustly do not grasp what point you are trying to make here.

Maybe you trying to say that this programmer of yours, by releasing a reimplemtation of code he wrote for his former employer infringes on the copyrights of his former employer? That may be true, I don't know what his job contract with his former employer had to say about such issues, nor do I know what the law has to say about this. But, for the sake of argument, let's assume that by doing so your programmer infringes the copyrights of his former employer. Well, if this is indeed the point you are trying to make, I still do not understand how this is GPL specific. Your programmer would infringe on his former employers's copyright irrespective of wheather he released his product in binary only form under the MS EULA, in binary only form under some other license, in source form under the GPL, the BSD license, the Artistic License, the Apache License or any other source license.

Please elaborate.

A new source of anti-GPL FUD

Posted Nov 22, 2003 20:13 UTC (Sat) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link]

" With a GPL License everyone has a piece of the action "

Man, i belive you are confused !

GPL sofware has AUTHORS like any other software, be it a corporation or a single individual,... GPL software is not copyleft, it has copyrights as any other software, and only the author, as in your example, as all the rights inherent to that software, including selling or giving away that rights under a different license, and or turning his project into a proprietary one as long he dosent steal anybody else code in the process... and, as in your example, he is the only one "to go to jail" for stealling his former employer copyrights,... if that is what you were suggesting.

A new source of anti-GPL FUD

Posted Nov 23, 2003 9:56 UTC (Sun) by fLameDogg (guest, #11305) [Link]

I think he's saying that everyone has this great piece of software, "Foobaz", which is proprietary and must be paid for. So now, in revenge, our antihero writes "Barbaz", a `Foobaz-alike', or clone (in the spirit of, say, GNU or Linux), only it is "free" (in every FSF-approved sense), and now suddenly no one needs to buy "Foobaz" anymore.

That's my take, anyway.

A new source of anti-GPL FUD

Posted Nov 23, 2003 11:44 UTC (Sun) by rev (guest, #15082) [Link]

Ok, maybe the OP was trying to say the following: this programmer of his can screw his former employer by releasing a reimplemention of his former employers' offering under the GPL. Assuming this is what the OP was trying to say, I still fail to comprehend how this is somehow a GPL specific problem. This programmer could have taken revenge on his former employer just as well by releasing his package under a BSD license, a X11 license or under a public domain license or some other source license. In fact, this programmer could have screwed his former employer equally well by releasing his software in binary only form under some license for little or no charge ("Cutting of their oxygen supply" this is called in the trade). The core of his case, if this is indeed what he is trying to say, is not that the programmer releases his product under the GPL but rather that he offers his own product for little or no charge.

I still do not get it. I still don't understand how this problem (what problem exactly?) is somehow related to, or a consequence of the GPL. I honoustly fail to understand. Please OP (Robert?) explain.

A new source of anti-GPL FUD

Posted Nov 23, 2003 20:30 UTC (Sun) by ccchips (subscriber, #3222) [Link]

You know what?

Think Netscape -> Internet Explorer.

It's worth pointing out that both of these were being distributed under a clearly non-free license at the time. The dirrerence was that Microsoft decided to "cut off" Netscape by distributing the tool free-of-charge to *everyone*, whereas Netscape had some requirements for corporate users to pay, and hoped that home users would pay once they decided they liked Netscape (indefinite evaluation period.)

What I can't understand myself; why anyone with any sense pays attention to some of these lawyers' idiocy.

As far as using the GPL to get back at a former employer, I agree that it's not all that formidable of a weapon. All the employer needs to do is to start releasing and distributing modified versions of the employee's program, and then offer better services andd value-added products (maybe in binary-only form, for a fee,) that compliment the GPL's product.

A new source of anti-GPL FUD

Posted Nov 26, 2003 4:13 UTC (Wed) by stefanwagner (guest, #17209) [Link]

The example want's to show a problem of the company, of getting a buisiness-damage (I'm sorry for my english).

Of course other companies may produce better, cheaper, maybe open source programs, which take the others company customers over.

Think of an baker. Baker man is baking bread.
He's got a good idea of a new kind of bread, is fired, and produces the bread in another bakery for less amount.
Or another company can immitate that bread.

Of course it is a problem for the first company.
But it's not a crime, while no contract guaranteed the unique usage of the idea.

How is it possible, that there isn't just one company producing cars?
Is every engineer a criminal?

If a company includes just a little piece of open source code in their proprietary software, there shouldn't be too much costs, in replacing it by code developped by own programers.
If the open-source is the biggest of the software, the effort in building this software was too small.

Of course, a programmer is responsible for not stealing code - whether open source or not.
Of course it's harder to steal closed source code, but it's not impossible - think about decompilers and dynamic link libraries.

If a company for canned meat, aka spam, solds cans where their stuff included stolen meat they have the same problem.

The lawyers made the fault to assume, that the GPL might be infecting all the other code, mixed with (stolen/ misused) open source.

Of course, if you sold open source, due to a criminal act of your employee, you have to remove the open source code, and find an alternative.
This should be possible for nearly any case.
If this is too expensive, you either stop the projekt, or license it under the GPL.

But a company is responsible for the acts of their stuff.
It may demand compensation from the programer.

That's my opinion.