[Tfug] GPL Worthless?

[Rich Smit]

On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 8:16 PM, Bexley Hall <bexley401 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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.

I was speaking about the fears, uncertainties, and doubts, you have
about the GPL. You are exactly on message for the Microsoft line.

>> 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.
Then this is not a debate. You came to this with the line that the GPL
is worthless, and then set out to "prove" it. Here you are rejecting
the facts that disprove the "worthless" presumption, and it turns from
being a "devil's advocate" debate into a preconceived notion that you
will defend to the last.

>  It takes *zero* effort to publish a
> snapshot of your source tree.
Tell that to the folks in legal. You're taking the view that
commercial project B is based on GPL project A. In reality, commercial
project B might be based on a prior proprietary project b1, bought-out
proprietary project C, GPL project A, BSD projects F and G, MIT
projects D and C, and project E which was written by a contractor who
had specific legal instructions as to ownership.

Ever heard of a little company called Sun? They work for *years* to
open OpenOffice, and succeeded against the odds. There was much debate
early on about why they weren't using the GPL or even the LGPL, and it
was because of precisely the kind of tangled inclusion illustrated
above. And yet now, LibreOffice is licensed under the LGPLv3.

>  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.

This is just untrue. One person in a team might borrow a little GPL
code, and leave a comment "GPL - fix later". Next person comes along,
looks over the code, and changes the comment to read "yyyy-mm-dd no
fix needed". Or the project might be abandoned, or become part of a
settlement, and be picked up by a completely different team, or posted
off to India for some quality enhancement. Mapping the pedigree of a
published project is seldom "zero effort".

> 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)

So you question is really about GPL kernels?
Here's a good article:
http://www.h-online.com/open/features/Enforcing-the-GPL-Kernel-hackers-join-the-fight-1586483.html

>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tucson Free Unix Group - tfug at tfug.org
> Subscription Options:
> http://www.tfug.org/mailman/listinfo/tfug_tfug.org