[Tfug] GPL Worthless?

[Bexley Hall]

Hi Richie,

--- On Fri, 9/7/12, Richie Smit <rfsmit at gmail.com> wrote:

> No. The FSF actively prosecutes GPL violations. No offense, but that  
> "worthless" line is the fud that m$ likes to be spread. One of the  

There are other licenses besides GPL so lumping all of them in
with MS (or GPL) is unfair.  The point of my question is *exactly*
the difference brought about by the GPL's "pay it forward" idea.

> values is that, given much GPL code is built on top of better known  
> GPL code, and violation is often done through ignorance (Jeepy what  
> now?) or laziness (fix later) and not malice, there end up being  
> multiple aggrieved parties: strength in union and all that.

I don't buy those excuses.  It takes *zero* effort to publish a
snapshot of your source tree.  And, I can't believe that folks
who KNOWINGLY pursued a GPL'd work somehow didn't *understand*
what their obligations were then, and now.  You head down that
development road fully aware that you *have* obligations.  You
think about how -- and if -- you will want to protect your own
IP in the process (e.g., you don't have to publish schematics!)

How many different tablets are on the market?  What percentage of
them have an underlying GPL'd kernel?  How many of *those* have
made their sources available?  Before you answer, do some research.
I would be *thrilled* if you come up with *any* (hint:  I've been
doing this, recently)

Or, a pointer to litigation against any of those manufacturers.

Then, start looking into other products that are GPL derived.
I have several different "appliances" here that are obviously
running a linux derivative (kernel, not necessarily userland).
But, getting my hands on the sources is simply impossible.

So, how is that "viral" goal of the GPL serving its purpose if
folks like me *can't* get these documents?

--don