Conversation

Notices

1. Lars Wirzenius Bradley M. Kuhn

   @bkuhn does https://lwn.net/Articles/456243/ mean what I think it means? that the gplv2 death penalty is meaningless?

   about 9 months ago from Gwibber
   • Bradley M. Kuhn The GNU General Public License

     @liw,this theory certainly isn't true in USA&I've never met a lawyer who believes it. Note: Armijn works for !GPL violators, so he's biased.

     about 9 months ago
   • Harald Welte Bradley M. Kuhn

     @bkuhn @liw: In Germany you definitely can always get a new license by obtaining another copy of the code.

     about 9 months ago
   • Bradley M. Kuhn The GNU General Public License , Harald Welte

     @laforge,I know that's your position,but do you have a German legal journal article or court case giving a definitive argument on this? !GPL

     about 9 months ago
   • Jos Poortvliet Bradley M. Kuhn

     @bkuhn questioning Armijn's credibility in question like that is quite low, Bradly... Expected more from you.

     about 9 months ago
   • Bradley M. Kuhn The GNU General Public License , Jos Poortvliet

     @jospoortvliet, it's not a credibility question, merely one of motivation. Someone working for violators wants !GPL to favor violators.

     about 9 months ago
   • Bradley M. Kuhn The GNU General Public License , Jos Poortvliet

     @jospoortvliet, I'd happily say I'm biased on the other side. I want !GPL to favor non-profit developers, because that's who I work for.

     about 9 months ago
   • armijn Bradley M. Kuhn

     @bkuhn I work for companies with issues. They want to be compliant so hired me to clean up. I don't see how that relates to this :-/

     about 9 months ago
   • Bradley M. Kuhn The GNU General Public License , armijn

     @armijn,it favors your !GPL violating clients if they can get license back easily. It favors © holders if rights must be formally restored.

     about 9 months ago
   • silner Jos Poortvliet

     @jospoortvliet It's an odd position if that really is the case in Germany. Would also mean you could never move from Freeware to a paying?

     about 9 months ago
   • Harald Welte Bradley M. Kuhn

     @bkuhn I think you're ridiculous. The harder it is for companies to become #gpl compliant, the more work there is for consultants.

     about 9 months ago
   • Harald Welte Bradley M. Kuhn , armijn

     @bkuhn so harder #gpl compliance would would not be in favor of @armijn workload. to the contrary!

     about 9 months ago
   • Bradley M. Kuhn The GNU General Public License , Harald Welte

     @laforge, this is indeed why I support switch to !GPLv3, but "automatic rights restoration at new download" eviscerates #GPL entirely IMO.

     about 9 months ago
   • Harald Welte Bradley M. Kuhn

     @bkuhn it is not 'automatic at new download' but 'automatic after new download _and_ being compliant'

     about 9 months ago
   • Bradley M. Kuhn The GNU General Public License , Harald Welte

     @laforge,GPLv2§4 & GPLv3§8 allow for add'l requirements for settlement:"compliance on all !GPL'd software present" Key part of enforcement!

     about 9 months ago
   • Bradley M. Kuhn The GNU General Public License , Harald Welte

     @laforge,That's where it breaks down. They can't be compliant w/ !GPLv2 §4 until the © holder gives them a new license. It's why v3§8 exists

     about 9 months ago
   • silner Bradley M. Kuhn , Jos Poortvliet

     @bkuhn As I said to @jospoortvliet that system would seem to invalidate all licence changes; not just the GPL?

     about 9 months ago
   • Kevin Granade Harald Welte

     @laforge I'd think that would only apply up to the point where the company decides to not use #GPL code at all.

     about 9 months ago
   • Bradley M. Kuhn busybox , The GNU General Public License , Harald Welte

     @laforge, I'd point out as well: there would be little !GPL compliance on #Linux in USA if not for #FSF & !BusyBox ©ers using v2§4 this way.

     about 9 months ago