| |||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||
OLS: Enforcing the GPLOLS: Enforcing the GPLPosted Jul 24, 2004 22:53 UTC (Sat) by stockholm (subscriber, #3939)In reply to: OLS: Enforcing the GPL by piman Parent article: OLS: Enforcing the GPL
Even if it is more trouble to use a proprietary product, it is what
(Log in to post comments)
It's never just ignorance Posted Jul 24, 2004 23:18 UTC (Sat) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link] A case doesn't get to court without the parties having prior contact. If they screwed up through ignorance (as you suggest) that's a great time to say "Ok, hand on my heart I screwed up, and I'm going to drop everything to give you what you want."Whereas on the other hand if they've already explicitly decided that they're not too interested in obeying the terms of the license, then when someone threatens a lawsuit they're going to say "Sure pal, whatever. You haven't got anything on me" and hope it's a bluff. This guy isn't bluffing. That's all it comes down to.
It's never just ignorance Posted Jul 25, 2004 14:43 UTC (Sun) by fjf33 (subscriber, #5768) [Link] Not from what I read. It seems his policy (as opposed to FSF's) is to get the lawyers out fast and get to trial fast so that companies don't drag their feet. Essentially he assumes there is an intent to steal from the corporations to begin with. Not a mistake or missinformation as the previous poster does. Is the FSF disingenous? Maybe, maybe not.
It's never just ignorance Posted Jul 26, 2004 13:19 UTC (Mon) by pflugstad (subscriber, #224) [Link] At this point, any company that uses GPL'd software knows what the license means. If they don't, they deserve to get sued, and fast. I'd be completely surprised if there are any cases of a company using GPL'd software and not complying with the license through ignorance. Which means that companies are making the concious decision to NOT comply with the GPL - so they get sued - so what, they'll drag it out in court until it doesn't matter any more. If you don't think this is a concious business decision on their part, you are completely naive. Companies do this as a matter of course, regardless of the nature of the license on the software they are using (commercial or otherwise). The intent to steal is definately there, as is the intent to delay getting taken to court as long as possible.
OLS: Enforcing the GPL Posted Jul 25, 2004 17:21 UTC (Sun) by JoeF (subscriber, #4486) [Link] Both the lower management and the engineers will not have happy days for quite some time and the turn to linux in that company is over for good. What a victory for freedom and free software.
Obviously, you have never worked in a company that sells software. The first thing any reputable company does is checking what licenses the tools/libraries/etc. that they are using have.
OLS: Enforcing the GPL Posted Jul 26, 2004 9:50 UTC (Mon) by minichaz (subscriber, #630) [Link] The free/Free misunderstanding is a purely English thing. English happens to have one word that means free as in beer and free as in freedom. Most languages have two different words for these meanings. French for example has "gratis" for free as in beer and "libre" for free as in freedom.Anyone know the situation in German? Anyone know of another language that has one word for both these concepts? Thanks.
OLS: Enforcing the GPL Posted Jul 26, 2004 13:56 UTC (Mon) by greve (subscriber, #8385) [Link] I can tell you that in German there are two words possible here: "frei" and "gratis".- "gratis" is exclusively only ever used for zero price - "frei" is clearly referring to freedom according to linguists, although I know the same to be true for Spanish, Portugese, Italian, Korean, Japanese at least -- in fact English is the only language I ever encountered that was so weak on this aspect.
OLS: Enforcing the GPL Posted Jul 26, 2004 18:49 UTC (Mon) by iabervon (subscriber, #722) [Link] But I know of a case of a French to English translation of "libre" to "uncopyrighted". In no language does the equivalent of "free" mean "granting freedom" rather than "having freedom", with, as far as I know, the sole exception of "free speech", which is short for "freedom of speach" ("of" denoting type, not possession) and related to "speak freely". So other languages have what is probably a worse confusion, that the software has been granted self-determination as opposed to being owned by someone, which most easily suggests public domain.
OLS: Enforcing the GPL Posted Jul 29, 2004 8:24 UTC (Thu) by chepelov (guest, #23542) [Link] Care to give the reference for that translation?There is a corner case, though: the expression "libre de droits", which is more or less equivalent to public domain ("unobstructed by [intellectual property]rights"). But nobody without an intent of infrigement would seriously think of "logiciel libre" to mean "public domain software". (now, mainstream press journalists, that's a different matter....)
OLS: Enforcing the GPL Posted Aug 5, 2004 12:28 UTC (Thu) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link] The original was French, and it was an (American iirc) Reuters translation.
So it was an English speaker who screwed up the translation ...
Cheers,
|
|||||||||||