Also misleading, tbird20

Posted Jan 15, 2025 2:04 UTC (Wed) by bkuhn (subscriber, #58642)
In reply to: Misleading by tbird20d
Parent article: SFC reports a successful (L)GPL suit in Germany

tbird20d wrote:

I know of cases where Linux or gcc was dropped from a product at least partly due to perceived legal risks, and this ups the ante.

“Legal risk”, in this case, of course means the “risk that we might be required by law to give our customers the same rights that we have under this license.”

But that's always been the “legal risk” of redistribution of copylefted software. Those who want to make proprietary software know where to find non-copyleft stuff to build on and always have. Those who are willing to treat their customers reasonably and give them equal rights are welcome and encouraged to use GCC and Linux.

The root cause of for-profit companies changing away from the copylefted software is that they have begun to slowly realize that they can't just get away consequence-free when they ignore their legal requirements anymore — as they often could in the past.

It's similar to factories closing when they can't meet the pollution standards: we all are indeed sad that jobs were lost, but that short-term societal pain is worth living through so we get cleaner air and water. The factories could always have invested in cleaner technologies instead of firing people; they just chose to blame their workers and the regulators rather than their own bad behavior.

Sadly, I am not surprised that — in both copyleft and environmental policy — wealthy for-profit companies get away with setting the narrative that the regulation is at fault rather than their refusal to invest in following the regulations. They build well-funded trade associations to spin that message for them.