[Tfug] GPL Worthless?

[Harry McGregor]

On 9/7/12 6:36 PM, Bexley Hall wrote:
> Hi Jude,
>
> --- On Fri, 9/7/12, Jude Nelson <judecn at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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.
> Yes, I understand what the terms of the license *claim*.
> This is, in essence, the big difference between GPL'd
> works and, e.g., BSD-ish licenses.
>
> I am free to take a BSD licensed work, modify it to my heart's
> content, and then lock the sources in a vault for NO ONE to
> see.  And, to do so LEGALLY!
>   
>> Keep in mind that no one is going to preemptively
>> punish GPL violators.  That's now how the law works.
> I'm not talking about vaporware that doesn't exist.  These
> are all real products that you can *purchase*, today.
> Products that are making their manufacturers lots of money
> based on leveraging FREE development work done by others
> with THEIR EXPECTATION that their free works will leverage
> *other* works to also be free.
>
> And, to do so with the power of a LEGALLY BINDING instrument!
>
>>   The violated party has to file suit (and they can choose
>> not to for $REASONS), and the issue is settled in court.
> Of course.
>
>>   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.
> Hence my original question.  Does that, in effect, make the
> GPL worthless?  I.e., if you don't have to honor the terms
> of the license, then what's the difference between that and
> a BSD style license (that gives you the legal right NOT to
> disclose your modifications)?
>   
>> 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.
> Again, if the licensor is not defending his license, what value
> does it have?  The linux kernel is, probably, the elephant in
> the room -- more widely "copied" than GenericSoftwareXYZ *and*
> with, potentially, the most muscle to defend same.
>
> I.e., guy writing a GPL'd program that plays TicTacToe is
> probably NOT going to see widespread use, copying, etc.
> Nor is he likely to have pockets deep enough to *do* anything
> if someone violates his license terms (so, for these sorts
> of development efforts, the GPL does nothing PRACTICAL except
> stroke ego).
>
> When I suggest an FOSS approach to a client's problem, I am
> *invariably* met with comments like:
>    "No, I don't want to use Linux"
>    "I don't want to have to give away my ideas"
> etc.  Which then leads into a discussion of how FOSS does not
> imply Linux (nor GPL).

Clients that can't get their head around the GPL won't trust anything 
FOSS, including BSD Licenses.

I know for a fact that IBM (whom I now work for) has put Billions of $$ 
into Linux development, and contributes back to the community extensively.

Additionally ANY license has to be reviewed by Legal, be it GPL or even 
commercial, both for just installation and use, and for source code / 
project use.

For anyone to assume that a commercial license is "all that's needed", 
is stupid and short sighted.   Heck, how many people actually read the 
EULA with anything, even APIs and Widgets?

You can comply with the GPL and still use a Linux and GPL middle layer 
in your application development without having to give away the farm 
legally.  It's been done many many times.

Is there accidental GPL violations (and even GPL violation on purpose), 
sure.   Those are found eventually, and dealt with.

Don't get me wrong, there is a place for the BSD license along side many 
others, but a statement of "it's BSD, so it's clean" does not work, 
especially in a world of software patents.

-Harry
> Of course, by then, you (I) am already fighting an uphill
> battle -- trying to explain that there are other FOSS offerings
> that *don't* impose those constraints on him.  It seems to
> strain credibility that something might *really* be "free".
> (i.e., in my industries, GPL seems to have caused more harm
> than good in promoting software sharing)
>
> Next time I have this discussion with a client, should I, instead,
> say, "Well, you can actually *steal* those GPL'd works and NOT
> ave to honor the terms of the license -- there's no *teeth*
> behind them!"?
>
> There's a line at the grocery store that says "10 items or less".
> Yet, invariably, folks go through it with 11, 15, 20, etc. items
> without consequence.  What value does the sign overhead have
> if it isn't *applied*/enforced?  Do only honest people have to
> stop at red lights?  Are these all just "suggestions"?  ("We would
> really appreciate it if you would share the changes that you
> have made to these sources that enabled you to produce a
> product based heavily on the works of others under this license.
> But, if you don't really want to, that's OK, too!")
>
> --don
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tucson Free Unix Group - tfug at tfug.org
> Subscription Options:
> http://www.tfug.org/mailman/listinfo/tfug_tfug.org