[Tfug] GPL Worthless?

[Jude Nelson]

I think you answered your own question--vendors who produce derivatives of
GPL'ed code are required by the licensing terms to release the changes in
source code form on request.  More specifically, the original developer has
the right to require that the producer of the derivative work relinquish
the source code modifications and make them available publicly, as per the
license agreement.

Keep in mind that no one is going to preemptively punish GPL violators.
 That's now how the law works.  The violated party has to file suit (and
they can choose not to for $REASONS), and the issue is settled in court.
 It is possible that the outcome is a settlement instead of a source code
dump (e.g. the developer grants the violator a different license to use the
code for their own purposes in exchange for $SETTLEMENT_FEE).  However,
there are cases where a violator has been successfully sued and were
compelled to released their changes.

Naturally, different licenses have different terms.  Ultimately, if the
developer doesn't take you to court for violating his/her license, it
doesn't really matter what the terms are.

Coming full circle, the *value* of the GPL (or any license) are the rights
and privileges you gain over the licensee, should you choose to enforce
them through the courts.  Different licenses offer different rights and
privileges.

-Jude

On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 6:37 PM, Bexley Hall <bexley401 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> To start, let me make it clear that I don't run an Linux variants
> and avoid GPL'd offerings as much as possible.
>
> Linux's (vs. any of the other free kernels & OS's) claim to fame
> seems to be its embracing of the GPL -- to virally allow software
> based on it to reproduce.
>
> Yet, looking at Linux based devices in the *market*, it seems that
> very few manufacturers seem to take those license terms seriously!
>
> Some make sources available (with a bit of digging).  Very few
> go beyond this to *encourage* modification of those sources
> (e.g., even something as simple as documenting the build process).
>
> Many *only* make the sources available -- with an attitude that
> borders on *contempt* for users looking for those sources!
> ["All we LEGALLY have to do is give you the sources.  Don't even
> *try* to ask for support!  ("Oh, but if you happen to find some
> really nasty bug in our implementation, we will begrudgingly
> accept a fully commented patch identifying the problem and its
> rememedy -- though we make no promises as to whether or not we'll
> credit you with that fix!")]
>
> And, I suspect the vast majority of the instances of GPL'd
> devices purchased with *no* compliance with GPL terms is the
> norm.  (just looking at the number of tablets running atop
> a linux kernel WITHOUT available sources should prove that
> point!)
>
> And, there seems to be no litigation in place to actively
> protect the terms of that license.
>
> So, can someone tell me what the *value* of a linux kernel
> is likely to be over any of the other non-GPL, FOSS kernels
> out there?
>
> [Sorry, I don't mean this to sound religious.  Rather, don't
> understand how something that isn't enforced/assured can have
> any practical *value* -- especially if that *thing* is what
> its advocates are promoting!]
>
> --don
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tucson Free Unix Group - tfug at tfug.org
> Subscription Options:
> http://www.tfug.org/mailman/listinfo/tfug_tfug.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://tfug.org/pipermail/tfug_tfug.org/attachments/20120907/160d7300/attachment-0002.html>