Open source-y people will love this-- talking about legal bullshit instead of coding
-
@blakeyrat said in Open source-y people will love this-- talking about legal bullshit instead of coding:
Like I said above, it doesn't even have a web site it's so user-unfriendly.
Ugh, so many developers out there think a github page is the same as a proper website.
Or worse, a forum thread.
-
@topspin said in Open source-y people will love this-- talking about legal bullshit instead of coding:
To add something to your list: if it's possible and not way too much, you could include the source of the gpl package instead of just linking to a repo.
This is one thing in this whole discussion I am 100% sure that it's not the case. GPL doesn't require you to preemptively publish source code, only to give access to it on demand. Public repositories and links in readme are just for publisher's and user's convenience.
-
@blakeyrat said in Open source-y people will love this-- talking about legal bullshit instead of coding:
@blakeyrat BTW if CPUWizard's lawsuit was legit, there's another strategy I could use to make this work:
[GPL intermediary component]
Only a few hours of development time, but I'd still like to avoid if it I can.From my non-expert reading of this [section 8, emphasis mine]
However, if you cease all violation of this License, then your license from a particular copyright holder is reinstated (a) provisionally, unless and until the copyright holder explicitly and finally terminates your license, and (b) permanently, if the copyright holder fails to notify you of the violation by some reasonable means prior to 60 days after the cessation.
Moreover, your license from a particular copyright holder is reinstated permanently if the copyright holder notifies you of the violation by some reasonable means, this is the first time you have received notice of violation of this License (for any work) from that copyright holder, and you cure the violation prior to 30 days after your receipt of the notice.
in the worst case you still should get 30 days to implement your strategy and regain the rights of the license.
-
Is there no way to protect yourself (rather than the program) so you don't have to worry about any legal threats?
Set up some Chinese LLC or something?
-
@topspin said in Open source-y people will love this-- talking about legal bullshit instead of coding:
in the worst case you still should get 30 days to implement your strategy and regain the rights of the license.
Well...sort of...what if the only way to get in compliance is to publish your source code? Then you are fucked anyway. Blakey is trying to avoid this because he wants to make money from it.
Also, being in compliance could mean surrendering all profits. What you said is not a panacea. Seriously, GPLv3 is cancer.
-
@coldandtired said in Open source-y people will love this-- talking about legal bullshit instead of coding:
Is there no way to protect yourself (rather than the program) so you don't have to worry about any legal threats?
Set up some Chinese LLC or something?
Chinese business entities don't do anything once you bring the money back stateside.
-
@polygeekery said in Open source-y people will love this-- talking about legal bullshit instead of coding:
Back to the OP:
GPLv3 is cancer. If you are wanting to pass information to it you are probably going to have to release your part as GPLv3. Some of the changes made in v3 were to capture web apps that did not require client installation. Simply passing information from your app to GPLv3 apps puts you in GPLv3 territory.
This is how it was explained to me. IANAL. We have a piece of GPLv3 software in one of our apps. I talked to the devs and pay them for a commercial license so that GPLv3 doesn't touch our codebase. Part of that contract stipulates that if there is any question on whether we are in compliance then the developer has to pay our legal and compliance fees.
Amazon and Google won't touch GPLv3, so we won't either. It is cancer. If I were you I would find a way around it or find some other way to do it.
The GPL v3 added provisions against "Tivo-ization" which means that the combined work should make no attempt whatsoever at blocking modified versions of the GPL software. It doesn't state anything about information like the AGPL does, which was made to guard against SAAS hosting of a combined work (the whole thing would then need to comply with AGPL as well).
If the end user never receives a GPL binary then everything would be fine with GPL. If the GPL software is distributed to the end user then it depends on how
the whole thing is combined, and that becomes lawyer territory.@blakeyrat The problem I see with trying to stay under the radar is that they might throw all users (developers) under the bus by switching to AGPL if they find out and get butthurt. Are you prepared to maintain the underlying code as your own fork should shit hit the fan?.
-
@jbert said in Open source-y people will love this-- talking about legal bullshit instead of coding:
The GPL v3 added provisions against "Tivo-ization" which means that the combined work should make no attempt whatsoever at blocking modified versions of the GPL software. It doesn't state anything about information like the AGPL does, which was made to guard against SAAS hosting of a combined work (the whole thing would then need to comply with AGPL as well).
I just checked, the software we license is AGPL. I was mistaken. I still maintain the GPLv3 is cancer though. ;)
-
This post is deleted!
-
All API is copyrightable now, so you passing switches to the GPL app means that you are using its API, so you must release your app as GPLv3. Thanks Oracle
-
So you can't acknowledge the app's existence at all. What if you made a folder in your install that only contained the app, and then in your code found the first file in the folder with the correct extension and called it assuming it was the app? Theoretically any file could go there, this specific installation just happens to put this file there.
-
Not sure if it pertains to the specific case, I'm assuming not but better safe than sorry: I noticed that if there's GPL licensed software distributed as a part of an embedded system of some kind, there's usually also a printed version of the GPL licence included.
-
One thing you could try is simply asking the library owner if they will license it LGPL (or other) for you. We wanted to use a library that was GPLv3 and I just couldn't work out how to make that work with the closed-source parts of the project.
I shot the guy an email, explained what I was doing and he wrote me a very nice message back with clear dispensation to use it under LGPL terms.
-
@cursorkeys I think the chances of that are larger if the GPL software is just a minor part of the whole thing.
Here we have someone who seems to depend on a piece of GPL software, calls it a piece of shit but doesn't have (and cannot make) an alternative to it, and then tries to wrap it in a nicer package and sell that package publicly as closed-source product. I don't think that's a good way to get the open-source authors to cooperate.
-
@pleegwat said in Open source-y people will love this-- talking about legal bullshit instead of coding:
In the minds of the EFF, as I understand it, if an application cannot perform its primary function without using GPL'ed code then it must be GPL. But if that flew in court then commercial applications on linux would not be a thing at all.
Also, for the Linux kernel there's a key wrinkle: the EFF don't have standing to sue people over GPL violations in relation to it.
-
@gąska said in Open source-y people will love this-- talking about legal bullshit instead of coding:
Wasn't that AGPL? IIRC GPLv3 came out before web apps (as we know them now) were a thing. And the reason for AGPL was that GPLv3 could be circumvented by web apps.
Yes. If GPLv3 is cancer, AGPL is weaponised ebola.
-
@blakeyrat said in Open source-y people will love this-- talking about legal bullshit instead of coding:
@thecpuwizard Right; I get that, but even a $5000 settlement might wipe out profitability from this project. Mostly I'm just being savvy internet facts man asking, "is this fake news?" before blindly trusting it.
At the risk of provoking the same response that @Gąska got, have you considered releasing your project as open source and making money from paid-for support or feature requests. If that route could get you well past $5000 without any risk of legal aggravation (and maintaining good-will with the open-source developers - which might or might not be significant somewhere down the line) then it could be a good option.
-
@japonicus This isn't an "X-Y" problem. I asked the question I intended to ask, and I got the best answer I think available for that question.
I'm not looking for suggestions like:
- "What you're doing is stupid and a waste of time fuck you"
- "Change your entire business model altogether from the ground up"
etc.
-
@blakeyrat we're not ShitOverflow, we don't have any obligation to strictly stick to Q&A format.
-
@gąska There's the general rule though that you shouldn't act like a dick in the help section, so if the the OP says No then it would be better to start a new thread in another section. Threads are free after all.
-
@jbert there's also general rule that OP shouldn't act like a dick themselves too. I was just trying to help, and he went full blakeyrat on me. Also, even when any further posts might not be helpful to him, someone else might find them interesting. The biggest problem with SO is that it's inherently anti-discussion and pro-half-assed solutions. And this topic requires a lot of discussion since copyright (and especially copyleft) laws are so ill-defined.
-
@gąska said in Open source-y people will love this-- talking about legal bullshit instead of coding:
we're not ShitOverflow, we don't have any obligation to strictly stick to Q&A format.
I never said you did. In fact, now that the question's answered, this thread is fair game for whatever.
@gąska said in Open source-y people will love this-- talking about legal bullshit instead of coding:
I was just trying to help,
You were not.
-
@blakeyrat said in Open source-y people will love this-- talking about legal bullshit instead of coding:
@gąska said in Open source-y people will love this-- talking about legal bullshit instead of coding:
I was just trying to help,
You were not.
I was at first. And then a good while after.
-
@polygeekery said in Open source-y people will love this-- talking about legal bullshit instead of coding:
I still maintain the GPLv3 is cancer though.
Localized lymphoma vs. metastasized melanoma.
-
@blakeyrat said in Open source-y people will love this-- talking about legal bullshit instead of coding:
@thecpuwizard said in Open source-y people will love this-- talking about legal bullshit instead of coding:
(the original company did not renew us - even though 20 years in business without any claim).
I had an auto insurance company do that to me once. 7 years with no accident, they have to pay out a TINY FRACTION of what I paid in, and they dropped me as soon as the next billing cycle ended.
State Farm did that to my parents with their homeowner's insurance. They had been paying for quite a while (>10 years, IIRC) with no incidents, but they made one claim when we were on a trip and a bag of clothes disappeared (probably stolen). It had a full set of clothing for Dad and each of us boys, including antique bolo ties from my great-grandfather. All together it came to only a couple hundred dollars. State Farm paid the claim and then dropped them.
So then they switched to Geico and saved a bit on their insurance with the multi-coverage, good driver, veteran's, and other discounts that they qualified for.
That shit should be illegal.
I don't know whether it should be illegal, but it is certainly unethical.