Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Debating Continues Over Possible Kernel GPL Violation

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #51
    Originally posted by GreatEmerald View Post
    I had to read this 5 times or so to understand what you are talking about. Simply put, Syke worded it a bit ambiguously and he actually meant "It doesn't matter where the copyright resides, the module must become GPL-licensed when they distribute a Linux-derived work, or else they violate the GPL." No need to make a fuss like that, this is not FUD. Also, there was no relicensing of others' code mentioned anywhere - the module is theirs.
    Some people believe that their code will become automatically GPL licensed if they touch GPL software. I don't know how Syke meant it, but Microsoft and others have been running a FUD campaign about "viral" GPL relicensing your code for many years now.

    If you violate the GPL, you have violated the GPL, that's it. Your code does not become GPL automatically. Even many OSS advocates sadly get this wrong.

    Perhaps Syke meant it differently, but it's important to fight the "viral" FUD.

    Comment


    • #52
      Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
      If you violate the GPL, you have violated the GPL, that's it. Your code does not become GPL automatically. Even many OSS advocates sadly get this wrong.
      Yeah, I violate GPL, let them sue me.
      Maybe you get those OSS advocates wrong?

      Comment


      • #53
        Originally posted by LightBit View Post
        Yeah, I violate GPL, let them sue me.
        My point is that you're the only one who can change the license of your code. Period.

        My point is not that GPL violation should be encouraged.

        Comment


        • #54
          Originally posted by tomato View Post
          I stand corrected.

          I assumed that the hostility to FLOSS, displayed most prominently in AppStore cases, was intrinsic to the whole company
          Actually it's the GPL's hostility to DRM that prevents it being published. Other FLOSS licenses don't have a problem with it.


          Now I can't say there are no contributions, I'll have to say there are no significant contributions ;-)
          I would say with items like Chrome taking a majority of the browser marketshare and cups being the defacto printing system of choice for non-windows machines there are a lot that would disagree.

          Comment


          • #55
            Originally posted by deanjo View Post
            I would say with items like Chrome taking a majority of the browser marketshare and cups being the defacto printing system of choice for non-windows machines there are a lot that would disagree.
            Except Apple didn't invent Webkit, they used it from KDE and slowly merged changes back; far slower than they made them in Safari. Apple didn't invent CUPS, they instead slowly pushed their changes upstream and when they got tired of it they purchased CUPS and re-licensed it they could continue on their proprietary way without having to contribute everything back.

            Comment


            • #56
              Originally posted by deanjo View Post
              I would say with items like Chrome taking a majority of the browser marketshare and cups being the defacto printing system of choice for non-windows machines there are a lot that would disagree.
              CUPS is GPL, KHTML, err, WebKit is LGPL: further proof that GPL is the only way to get something back. We're still waiting to know what they contributed back to BSD, that's not useful to OSX obviously. BSD zealots are the most credulous people around and they like (are they masochistic?) to be caught by in simple honeypots (remember Darwin?).

              Comment


              • #57
                Originally posted by locovaca View Post
                Except Apple didn't invent Webkit, they used it from KDE and slowly merged changes back; far slower than they made them in Safari.
                Actually Apple forked khtml and created Webkit where the changes appear in a timely manner.

                Apple didn't invent CUPS, they instead slowly pushed their changes upstream and when they got tired of it they purchased CUPS and re-licensed it they could continue on their proprietary way without having to contribute everything back.
                Everything present in the the Mac OS implementation is present in the release that you enjoy in your distribution. Fact is that Apple after purchasing CUPS could have just as easily changed the license leaving the opensource community with an older version of CUPS to base a forked version on. This has not happened however and CUPS continues to be maintained and developed in a open manner.

                Comment


                • #58
                  Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                  Actually Apple forked khtml and created Webkit where the changes appear in a timely manner.
                  Webkit as an open project is something that happened only after the complaints from the KDE community. Originally, all they got was occasional giant patch dumps.

                  Comment


                  • #59
                    Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
                    My point is that you're the only one who can change the license of your code. Period.
                    Yes, but you have to do it, if you don't want to violate GPL.

                    Comment


                    • #60
                      Originally posted by Zardoz View Post
                      We're still waiting to know what they contributed back to BSD, that's not useful to OSX obviously.
                      Why would they as a company develop something that was not useful to them?

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X