Why GPL-licensed code is dangerous for businesses to use

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Yeah, and if you haven't seen the GPL for a piece of code YOU DO NOT HAVE A LICENSE TO REDISTRIBUTE AT ALL either. If you then go ahead and distribute the code I can pretty much assure you that, if you get called on it, whatever license the code is actually under is going to be the baseline for what the courts tell you you need to do to solve the problem.

It's the same principle as the music example because RIAA has their cute little pre-defined remedy as well, though that one is at least being tested by a small percentage of the people they're going after.

[Kuciwalker]

Why?

[Kuciwalker]

More generally, why would you expect the court to enforce STIFFER penalties than already provided for in copyright law?

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Because it's not stiffer than what's already provided for in copyright law. A company generally has to negotiate to buy licenses for software they use/distribute without a license when they get caught. In this case, the license they're buying is the one that the code is distributed under normally, the GPL. It's either open the project or pull it off the shelf until they excise the GPL'd code. (Technically, they could try to negotiate with the license holder for a different license, but if it's a hardcore GPL type they're probably not going to get it.) If you drop punitive on top of that...

[Kuciwalker]

Because it's not stiffer than what's already provided for in copyright law.

If it weren't people like Asher wouldn't be in a tizzy.

[KrazyHorse]

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?

A commercial software licenser is interested in receiving payment. The remedies offered by the court are likely to be monetary in nature, i.e. a cut of all future sales of the affected products you put out.

[Asher]

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.

This argument is a red herring, or a straw man...depending how you look at it. Nobody said Linksys' only problem was the GPL. Just that the GPL is the part that is terrifying to the companies.

[Kuciwalker]

See, you keep trying to divert the issue. NONE of Linksys's problem was the GPL. ALL of their problem was not knowing the provenance of the code in their product. No policy at all regarding the GPL could have prevented what occurred, so to point to this and say "see, you should be terrified of the GPL!" is idiotic.

The simple fact is that if you are going to write closed-source software you obviously can't use GPLed code in the first place.

[Kuciwalker]

Why do you think they had the interns writing the open source code.

BSD license
GPL license

just saw this. Much [most?] of the software written by TI is open source; most of it is written for TI chips specifically.

[Asher]

just saw this. Much [most?] of the software written by TI is open source; most of it is written for TI chips specifically.

It's a valuable proposition to TI, whose product is not the software but the hardware. Making the sourcecode open just means more potential sales for their chips.

[Asher]

See, you keep trying to divert the issue. NONE of Linksys's problem was the GPL.

No, it's you that's diverting the issue. We all know, have understood, and have moved on from the corporate mess that is involved with knowing where all your code comes from. It's impossible to know. That's the main problem. It's also not solvable.

So the problem that this thread is discussing is why the GPL is bad. It's even in the title. If it had been virtually any other license on the planet, Linksys would probably still be using Linux on their routers. This business case is used as a case study by businesses all over for why the GPL is bad, because it can result in the loss of proprietary possession of a very valuable IP. In Linksys' case, the IP wasn't worth much to them and of course there was issues in how they got to that point in the first place, but for the most part that's unavoidable in business.

As I said, some lowly codemonkey in India or an intern puts in some GPL code or links to it in a commercial product and bam, it's gone...that was demonstrated with the Linksys case. We're not arguing what originated their problem, we're talking about what made it so dangerous and scary for people with valuable IPs.

[Kuciwalker]

It's a valuable proposition to TI, whose product is not the software but the hardware. Making the sourcecode open just means more potential sales for their chips.

Thank you for explaining the obvious to all the morons reading this thread

[Kuciwalker]

So the problem that this thread is discussing is why the GPL is bad. It's even in the title. If it had been virtually any other license on the planet, Linksys would probably still be using Linux on their routers. This business case is used as a case study by businesses all over for why the GPL is bad, because it can result in the loss of proprietary possession of a very valuable IP. In Linksys' case, the IP wasn't worth much to them and of course there was issues in how they got to that point in the first place, but for the most part that's unavoidable in business.

What does "GPL is bad" mean? It's a useless statement unless it transforms into some course of action, which would either be "don't use GPL code" (already done for anyone writing closed-source software) or "don't write GPL code" (why? it doesn't harm you).

[Asher]

What does "GPL is bad" mean?

I honestly believe I have quantified very verbosely why many businesses think the GPL is bad.

It's a useless statement unless it transforms into some course of action, which would either be "don't use GPL code" (already done for anyone writing closed-source software) or "don't write GPL code" (why? it doesn't harm you).

While it took me a few minutes to recover from being blown away by the insight to this post, I am ready to reply now.

Yes, the solution is frequently "don't use GPL code", which is something that I find to be a waste as there is some really good GPL code out there that the public (by way of implementations) would really benefit from. The code is already free (the vast majority of the time), but the dogmatic license is such a legal minefield and a serious threat that GPL code is largely the equivalent of a social leper. The GPL software ecosystem is its leper colony.

And to me, that should be against the spirit of anyone who truly believes in the movement of open source code. For all of the stuff I've ever made on my own time, I've attached a BSD license to it. Maybe it's because I'm a better person than GPL supporters, I'll never know.

[Kuciwalker]

I honestly believe I have quantified very verbosely why many businesses think the GPL is bad.

1) This sentence doesn't actually make any sense. "quantified?"

2) Yes, but I didn't ask why it was bad, I asked what "GPL is bad" means.

Yes, the solution is frequently "don't use GPL code", which is something that I find to be a waste as there is some really good GPL code out there that the public (by way of implementations) would really benefit from. The code is already free (the vast majority of the time), but the dogmatic license is such a legal minefield and a serious threat that GPL code is largely the equivalent of a social leper. The GPL software ecosystem is its leper colony.

Dude, close-source shops don't avoid GPL because it's a legal minefield; they avoid GPL because it's deliberately incompatible with closed-source software. It's a meaningless criticism because this incompatibility is a feature, not a bug.

And to me, that should be against the spirit of anyone who truly believes in the movement of open source code. For all of the stuff I've ever made on my own time, I've attached a BSD license to it. Maybe it's because I'm a better person than GPL supporters, I'll never know.

So you admit your opposition is ideological.