Why GPL-licensed code is dangerous for businesses to use

[Kuciwalker]

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.

In addition to my other response to this, IT IS A COPYRIGHT VIOLATION TO DISTRIBUTE OTHERS' CODE without a license regardless of whether you've ever seen such a license.

[Kuciwalker]

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

Not their problem. That just means you're in copyright violation.

[Asher]

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

You seem to be confused. The question isn't having to download the GPL Code, it's the GPL license.

I could download a simple binary blob online, or have someone email it to me. There's no GPL license in the header of a binary blob, nor associated license file. If I link to it, it could be a violation of the GPL and I'd not have any clue it was happening.

There's a reason why EULAs have a big "I ACCEPT" button on it, and even that is questionable to many people. GPL requires passive acceptance which is very shaky legal ground, especially when you can't guarantee every end user who links to that GPL code would see its license.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Not their problem. That just means you're in copyright violation.

Yeah, but a copyright violation doesn't carry with it a built-in remedy of opening your entire project.

[Asher]

In addition to my other response to this, IT IS A COPYRIGHT VIOLATION TO DISTRIBUTE OTHERS' CODE without a license regardless of whether you've ever seen such a license.

But a copyright violation does not mean you lose all proprietary claims to the software you've written.

You keep coming back to this red herring -- I'm not saying it's legal to do all of these things, but the point is the punishments for doing such things are far more in line with reality than the cluster**** that is the GPL violation punishment. If IBM is found to be guilty of taking 2 lines of code from someone else, they can pay a couple thousand bucks to tens of thousands of bucks to the author. If it's GPL code, that software is now fully open sourced.

So again, the problem is the GPL violation's remedy and not the fact that sometimes code moves 'round with different legal implications.

[Kuciwalker]

[q=Asher;5644164]If you think I'm making your point, then you don't understand mine now or you didn't when this thread started.[/q]

You don't even understand the implications of what you are saying.

Linksys DID NOT KNOW THE PROVENANCE OF ALL THE CODE IN THEIR SYSTEM. That was the problem. No corporate policy on the GPL can fix the problem of not knowing what licenses you are subject to!

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?

The only purpose of such a clause is NOT to trick people into accidentally opensourcing their code.

Your position is ridiculous. Do you have any ACTUAL EVIDENCE that their intentions are other than stated? Their stated intentions are sufficient to justify the provisions of the GPL.

[Kuciwalker]

Yeah, but a copyright violation doesn't carry with it a built-in remedy of opening your entire project.

Then why are we assuming that the company would have to open up their entire project as a penalty, rather than just pay the penalty for any other violation? ESPECIALLY if they didn't actually "know" about the GPL?

[Kuciwalker]

You can't have your cake both ways, guys. Either the GPL is SUPER SCARY or HAHA IT'S PROBABLY NOT LEGAL.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

[q=Asher;5644164]If you think I'm making your point, then you don't understand mine now or you didn't when this thread started.[/q]

You don't even understand the implications of what you are saying.

Linksys DID NOT KNOW THE PROVENANCE OF ALL THE CODE IN THEIR SYSTEM. That was the problem. No corporate policy on the GPL can fix the problem of not knowing what licenses you are subject to

No, the point is that the GPL exacerbates the problem.

However, this point has little to do with his original question of whether or not the GPL hurts the open source movement.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Then why are we assuming that the company would have to open up their entire project as a penalty, rather than just pay the penalty for any other violation? ESPECIALLY if they didn't actually "know" about the GPL?

Because that's what the GPL says and nobody has dared to test it yet. Whenever it has come up the remedy has been what it says in the license.

[Kuciwalker]

No, the point is that the GPL exacerbates the problem.

Not when the alternative to the GPL is "arbitrary license that could easily have all of the GPL's provisions and more".

[Koyaanisqatsi]

By the way, throw the "I didn't know it was under license" argument at a RIAA lawyer and see what happens.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Not when the alternative to the GPL is "arbitrary license that could easily have all of the GPL's provisions and more".

So your argument is that the GPL is a better license than this arbitrary license I've written explicitly to be as bad or worse than the GPL?

Ok.

[Kuciwalker]

So your argument is that the GPL is a better license than this arbitrary license I've written explicitly to be as bad or worse than the GPL?

Ok.

My argument is that the GPL is a red herring. It has nothing to do with Linksys's actual problem, it just happened to be the license that bit them.

[Kuciwalker]

By the way, throw the "I didn't know it was under license" argument at a RIAA lawyer and see what happens.

Think about that for a second, kid.

With music YOU DO NOT HAVE A LICENSE TO REDISTRIBUTE AT ALL. The code isn't under license wrt you. You have NO right to redistribute. Static linking would be a form of redistributition.

The GPL GRANTS you additional rights, including the right to redistribute the code and/or derivative works [e.g. static linking] if certain conditions are met, e.g. you license the redistributed work under the GPL as well.

"I never saw the license" at best makes you guilty of a copyright violation instead of a license violation.