Why GPL-licensed code is dangerous for businesses to use

[Asher]

This is an absurd, idiotic assertion. Point me to a single closed-source license that would mandate anyone linking to their application open the source or worse. Just one.

You're talking about the RISK that if you DON'T UNDERSTAND the GPL it can bite you in the ass. So I don't need an example to show the RISK that an ARBITRARY LICENSE might contain penalty provisions that are ARBITRARILY PAINFUL.

If the company using the source had understood the GPL it wouldn't have been a problem. If they can't understand the GPL then there's no reason to believe they will understand an arbitrary other license.

You're making a lot of assumptions here. In Cisco's case, they understood the GPL and had a strict no-GPL rule internally. That didn't help them, did it?

No, because Linksys in this case could have banned all GPL code and it wouldn't have mattered because THEY DIDN'T KNOW WHAT CODE WAS IN THEIR PRODUCT.

It didn't matter that they didn't know. They could've banned all GPL code henceforth as well (GPL code was banned before and after this, by the way). It doesn't matter. They shipped products with GPL code -- and they didn't know it. As a result, they had to opensource their software. They immediately switched from Linux to VxWorks because of this, to reduce their exposure in the future.

Ignorance is no excuse. GPL violations can happen in your software without you knowing it. If one lowly paid co-op or intern student put GPL code inside a shipping product without his manager's approval, that constitutes a GPL violation and the sourcecode for the entire product would be open sourced. This is not fearmongering, this is the entire point of the GPL.

[KrazyHorse]

If they stole closed-source code they would have to abide by whatever penalty was embedded in the closed-source license, would could involve ARBITRARILY WORSE things than opensourcing an application.

Actually, isn't this untrue? Don't courts enforce some sort of reasonableness standard to contract penalties?

[Koyaanisqatsi]

The problem with this argument is that, while the GPL's viral features chase away people who may want to to use GPL'd code, the reason they're scared away is because they don't want to open their code. Therefore, even if not for the GPL, they most likely wouldn't be open-sourcing their project anyway (under any license). So the damage that the GPL does to the open source movement is to keep away people who wouldn't be participating anyway, while the benefit of it is that it leaves authors with the ability to control how their code is used downstream.

[Asher]

If they stole closed-source code they would have to abide by whatever penalty was embedded in the closed-source license, would could involve ARBITRARILY WORSE things than opensourcing an application.

Actually, isn't this untrue? Don't courts enforce some sort of reasonableness standard to contract penalties?

I'm fairly certain this has never been tested in court, because there's no such license that I'm aware of and the philosophical nature of it. When the GPL is violated, it's a violation in principle and for some people, religion. When a closed-source license is violated, it's a loss of revenue.

If the GPL is violated, the only resolution is to opensource the violator.
If a closed-source license is violated, the only resolution is monetary compensation.

And I'm also pretty sure the courts would also take into account unreasonable closed-source licenses that would do insane things.

[Asher]

The problem with this argument is that, while the GPL's viral features chase away people who may want to to use GPL'd code, the reason they're scared away is because they don't want to open their code. Therefore, even if not for the GPL, they most likely wouldn't be open-sourcing their project anyway (under any license). So the damage that the GPL does to the open source movement is to keep away people who wouldn't be participating anyway, while the benefit of it is that it leaves authors with the ability to control how their code is used downstream.

Yes. It depends if you write your code for the betterment of technology, or to further your own agenda.

Look at BSD license. There's some awesome code in BSD. As a result, it's being used in MacOS X and Windows both with no worry or threat behind it. Free and open source software and proprietary software all make use of great technology that somebody contributed to the public domain.

BSD is philanthropic while GPL is dogmatic. Personally, I write code to contribute to better technology and not to further some ideology. I like to use the best tool for the job wherever possible, and it frustates me to no end to see awesome code in GPL software that is rarely used in the real world just because it's GPL.

[notyoueither]

All your assets are belong to us?

[Kuciwalker]

If they stole closed-source code they would have to abide by whatever penalty was embedded in the closed-source license, would could involve ARBITRARILY WORSE things than opensourcing an application.

Actually, isn't this untrue? Don't courts enforce some sort of reasonableness standard to contract penalties?

If "you have to open all your source" is a reasonable penalty, why wouldn't "you have to give up all your source to us" be?

[Asher]

Precisely.

It's like if your son is caught stealing a candybar from a convenience store. You may have no knowledge of it, but if he brings it home the police would come and confiscate all of your assets and put them on the street for everyone else to use.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

It hasn't been determined in court that "you have to open all your source" actually is a reasonable remedy yet.

[Asher]

If "you have to open all your source" is a reasonable penalty, why wouldn't "you have to give up all your source to us" be?

We don't know that "you have to open all your source" is a reasonable penalty. It's never had a court precedent as far as I can tell, mainly because it'd be a nightmare to do and bad publicity.

And it's one thing to contribute code to the public domain, and it's another thing to transfer its ownership. One is obviously far worse than the other.

[Kuciwalker]

You're making a lot of assumptions here. In Cisco's case, they understood the GPL and had a strict no-GPL rule internally. That didn't help them, did it?

Thank you for making my point for me

It didn't matter that they didn't know. They could've banned all GPL code henceforth as well (GPL code was banned before and after this, by the way). It doesn't matter. They shipped products with GPL code -- and they didn't know it.

Thank you for making my point for me

Ignorance is no excuse. GPL violations can happen in your software without you knowing it. If one lowly paid co-op or intern student put GPL code inside a shipping product without his manager's approval, that constitutes a GPL violation and the sourcecode for the entire product would be open sourced.

Thank you for making my point for me

This is not fearmongering, this is the entire point of the GPL.

No, the purpose of the GPL was not to sneak it into commercial code so that they could trick companies into open-sourcing their software.

[Asher]

It hasn't been determined in court that "you have to open all your source" actually is a reasonable remedy yet.

There's other arguments also that question the legality of the GPL, but none are very convincing.

For instance, there is no "I Accept" type functionality for the GPL. It's very possible to link and utilize GPL code without ever seeing the GPL license at all.

[Kuciwalker]

It is not possible to statically link GPL code without having downloaded or installed that GPL code to your development computer.

[Asher]

Thank you for making my point for me

It didn't matter that they didn't know. They could've banned all GPL code henceforth as well (GPL code was banned before and after this, by the way). It doesn't matter. They shipped products with GPL code -- and they didn't know it. As a result, they had to opensource their software. They immediately switched from Linux to VxWorks because of this, to reduce their exposure in the future.

Thank you for making my point for me

Ignorance is no excuse. GPL violations can happen in your software without you knowing it. If one lowly paid co-op or intern student put GPL code inside a shipping product without his manager's approval, that constitutes a GPL violation and the sourcecode for the entire product would be open sourced.

Thank you for making my point for me

This is not fearmongering, this is the entire point of the GPL.

No, the purpose of the GPL was not to sneak it into commercial code so that they could trick companies into open-sourcing their software.

If you think I'm making your point, then you don't understand mine now or you didn't when this thread started.

And yes, this is an intentional purpose of the GPL. You can't honestly tell me you think they accidentally included the clauses in the GPL that define that any code that even links to it must be open sourced?

[Koyaanisqatsi]

It is not possible to statically link GPL code without having downloaded or installed that GPL code to your development computer.

No, but that's doesn't mean you actually looked at the license file either.

Of course, clickwraps are not on entirely stable legal ground either, but it's at least an affirmative action taken by the user.