Examining an attack on the GPL [LWN.net]

Examining an attack on the GPL

Posted Nov 24, 2003 23:24 UTC (Mon) by vblum (guest, #1151)
In reply to: Examining an attack on the GPL by jamienk
Parent article: Examining an attack on the GPL

Hm. I see that point more clearly now.

Still paragraph 5 is rather threatening in combination with 2a and 6 (and rightfully so). Why the appropriate "damages" should not be the forced opening of infringing code in a given case escapes me.

But, I've posted too much already! Thanks for the answers!

(Log in to post comments)

Examining an attack on the GPL

Posted Nov 25, 2003 0:18 UTC (Tue) by josh_stern (guest, #4868) [Link]

Is there some reason why a company that (perhaps unknowingly) steals GPL code for use in its proprietary product is more likely to have to lose a proprietary interest in their own contribution than a company that (perhaps unknowingly) steals code with some other license? For concreteness, say Rogue Wave code is somehow found in their product and they never bought a Rogue Wave license. Is the worry that "some judge" is likely to be much more punitive in the GPL stealing case?

If the point here is that GPL should actually be treated like a real license then I'm sure the FSF and others are in favor of that concern.

Examining an attack on the GPL

Posted Nov 25, 2003 1:22 UTC (Tue) by vblum (guest, #1151) [Link]

No 100 % compelling reason. BUT, one might argue that the nature of GPL makes the
argument much much easier to force code opening as a way of remedying damages. No
need to motivate it first ... it's already right there.

Examining an attack on the GPL

Posted Nov 26, 2003 16:29 UTC (Wed) by josh_stern (guest, #4868) [Link]

What the company with proprietary code and a court would care about is the overall monetary value of any awarded damages. Courts don't work like interior decorators and just award damages willy-nilly based on a coordinating "theme".

Examining an attack on the GPL

Posted Nov 30, 2003 12:04 UTC (Sun) by IkeTo (subscriber, #2122) [Link]

Is there some reason why a company that (perhaps unknowingly) steals GPL code for use in its proprietary product is more likely to have to lose a proprietary interest in their own contribution than a company that (perhaps unknowingly) steals code with some other license?

No. But that's an inappropriate comparison. You won't normally see the proprietary code lying there in web sites waiting for you to download without you signing an agreement, contract, whatever.

There are reasons why proprietary software writers would object GPL, and it is perfectly legitimate: GPL is written to crush them. While I'm perfectly for GPL and 100% against proprietary software, I think GPL software writers still have an obligation to remind people from falling into the trap and become forced to abandon their projects (or GPL their code). I mean, while the language of GPL is as clear as crystal, and while all the rules for using the software is clearly written there, we still shouldn't try misleading proprietary writers to believe that GPL is very safe to use for their project--and only after their projects started, tell them that they are violating the license and force them to stop. It's better to get them warned at the beginning.

If GPL wins over proprietary software, I'd much rather it win by a fair competition, rather than by misinformation by software writers.