So the real problem is FUD? [LWN.net]

So the real problem is FUD?

Posted Feb 2, 2012 1:29 UTC (Thu) by neilbrown (subscriber, #359)
In reply to: About the calculus for the project by tbird20d
Parent article: A tempest in a toybox

If I understand you correctly, the real problem here is FUD.

Companies want to comply and try to comply, but there is uncertainty and doubt as to whether they will do so successfully and fear of the possible costs imposed to restore their license.

Does the GPLv3 address this? It gives a guaranteed re-instatement if you become compliant with 30 days (as long as you aren't a repeat offender). Is that enough to reduce the FUD?

That wouldn't help with BusyBox or Linux as they are v2 only, but maybe understanding if the v3 clause is helpful would give us a better perspective on the issues.

to post comments

So the real problem is FUD?

Posted Feb 2, 2012 1:36 UTC (Thu) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link] (3 responses)

GPLv3 bring in several other clauses that cause even more fear.

Plus how is 'repeat offender' defined? for a large company, it's very possible for the company as a whole to trigger the 'repeat offender' clause, even if everyone who ever does something wrong never does it again (if nothing else, large companies acquire other companies, and employees at these newly acquired companies may not be doing everything per the polices of the big company)

So the real problem is FUD?

Posted Feb 2, 2012 1:40 UTC (Thu) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link] (2 responses)

I don't see any notion of repeat offenders in

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html

So the real problem is FUD?

Posted Feb 2, 2012 1:44 UTC (Thu) by neilbrown (subscriber, #359) [Link] (1 responses)

Third paragraph of section 8.

Moreover, your license from a particular copyright holder is reinstated permanently if the copyright holder notifies you of the violation by some reasonable means, this is the first time you have received notice of violation of this License (for any work) from that copyright holder, and you cure the violation prior to 30 days after your receipt of the notice.

Only applies "first time" for each copyright holder.

So the real problem is FUD?

Posted Feb 2, 2012 10:14 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

Note that this clause is triggered only if copyright holder notifies you. If someone else finds out you are using GPLv3 product incorrectly (something like casual "I see you are offering special version of GCC in your SDK, but I don't see neither source nor a way to request said sources") and you react accordingly ("Oh, you know, we just forgot to upload them, can you wait a few days?") then license is reinstated without any strings attached. You can make mistakes as many times as you want till the actual copyright notifies you of the violation by some reasonable means.