Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > GPL Triumphs Again

Reply
Thread Tools

GPL Triumphs Again

 
 
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-04-2010
I’d say the GPL has survived the most thorough hammering in the courts that
lawyers have been able to throw at it, of all the Free Software licences.

<http://lwn.net/Articles/398592/>
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
peterwn
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-04-2010
On Aug 4, 5:46*pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
> Id say the GPL has survived the most thorough hammering in the courts that
> lawyers have been able to throw at it, of all the Free Software licences.
>
> <http://lwn.net/Articles/398592/>


LWN in turn cited from:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...00803132055210

One outcome will be to vastly increase awareness of the requirements
of the GPL among companies who incorporate GPL'd code in their
products. I foresee that if someone does a survey re GPL obligations
among companies in 12 months time, awareness of GPL obligations will
be vastly greater than figures recently indicated in this ng.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-04-2010
In message
<(E-Mail Removed)>, peterwn
wrote:

> One outcome will be to vastly increase awareness of the requirements
> of the GPL among companies who incorporate GPL'd code in their
> products.


Maybe. Have you noticed that a majority of the lawsuits seem to involve
BusyBox? It shows that the embedded vendors are by far the biggest
offenders. If they can’t keep a simple thing like Free Software licensing
straight, imagine what a mess their proprietary licensing must be like...
 
Reply With Quote
 
victor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-04-2010
On 4/08/2010 6:52 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message
> <(E-Mail Removed)>, peterwn
> wrote:
>
>> One outcome will be to vastly increase awareness of the requirements
>> of the GPL among companies who incorporate GPL'd code in their
>> products.

>
> Maybe. Have you noticed that a majority of the lawsuits seem to involve
> BusyBox? It shows that the embedded vendors are by far the biggest
> offenders. If they can’t keep a simple thing like Free Software licensing
> straight, imagine what a mess their proprietary licensing must be like...


They probably just pay a single royalty for proprietary rom images.
No source code publication is required which is what the busybox
bickering seems to be about.
 
Reply With Quote
 
peterwn
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-04-2010
On Aug 4, 10:04*pm, victor <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> > BusyBox? It shows that the embedded vendors are by far the biggest
> > offenders. If they cant keep a simple thing like Free Software licensing
> > straight, imagine what a mess their proprietary licensing must be like....

>
> They probably just pay a single royalty for proprietary rom images.
> No source code publication is required which is what the busybox
> bickering seems to be about.


There are issues here too. The purchaser of the ROM's need to ensure
that the chip vendor has obtained licences and paid royalties for any
other firms' software that is used. For very complex functions the
choice narrows down to using Linux and related utilities such as
busybox, or using an operating system product from the likes of
Microsoft.

The decision boils down to an economic one - the cost of abiding by
the GPL (ie making source code available) versus the cost of paying
royalties.
 
Reply With Quote
 
victor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-04-2010
On 5/08/2010 7:42 a.m., peterwn wrote:
> On Aug 4, 10:04 pm, victor<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>> BusyBox? It shows that the embedded vendors are by far the biggest
>>> offenders. If they cant keep a simple thing like Free Software licensing
>>> straight, imagine what a mess their proprietary licensing must be like...

>>
>> They probably just pay a single royalty for proprietary rom images.
>> No source code publication is required which is what the busybox
>> bickering seems to be about.

>
> There are issues here too. The purchaser of the ROM's need to ensure
> that the chip vendor has obtained licences and paid royalties for any
> other firms' software that is used. For very complex functions the
> choice narrows down to using Linux and related utilities such as
> busybox, or using an operating system product from the likes of
> Microsoft.
>
> The decision boils down to an economic one - the cost of abiding by
> the GPL (ie making source code available) versus the cost of paying
> royalties.


They could factor in the cost of litigation too if there is an economic
benefit in delaying publication of the source code to competitors.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-04-2010
In message <i3ch9o$tce$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org>, victor wrote:

> They could factor in the cost of litigation too if there is an economic
> benefit in delaying publication of the source code to competitors.


But there isn’t one. For all the talk of “precious intellectual property” in
their proprietary software, this has never been credibly quantified.
 
Reply With Quote
 
victor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-04-2010
On 5/08/2010 10:28 a.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message<i3ch9o$tce$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org>, victor wrote:
>
>> They could factor in the cost of litigation too if there is an economic
>> benefit in delaying publication of the source code to competitors.

>
> But there isn’t one. For all the talk of “precious intellectual property” in
> their proprietary software, this has never been credibly quantified.


You are being naive
If you were a TV manufacturer, having to publish your source code for
your HD TVs GUI interface for your competitors to browse in advance of
its launch at the various consumer shows would be quite undesirable.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-04-2010
In message <i3csrn$cof$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org>, victor wrote:

> On 5/08/2010 10:28 a.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> In message<i3ch9o$tce$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org>, victor wrote:
>>
>>> They could factor in the cost of litigation too if there is an economic
>>> benefit in delaying publication of the source code to competitors.

>>
>> But there isn’t one. For all the talk of “precious intellectual property”
>> in their proprietary software, this has never been credibly quantified.

>
> You are being naive


No, I’m being realistic. I seek evidence to disprove my point, and there is
none. QED.

> If you were a TV manufacturer, having to publish your source code for
> your HD TVs GUI interface for your competitors to browse in advance of
> its launch at the various consumer shows would be quite undesirable.


The GPL requires that you only have to offer the source once the code has
been published.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Gordon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-05-2010
On 2010-08-04, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <(E-Mail Removed)_zealand> wrote:
> In message <i3csrn$cof$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org>, victor wrote:
>
>> On 5/08/2010 10:28 a.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> In message<i3ch9o$tce$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org>, victor wrote:
>>>
>>>> They could factor in the cost of litigation too if there is an economic
>>>> benefit in delaying publication of the source code to competitors.
>>>
>>> But there isn?t one. For all the talk of ?precious intellectual property?
>>> in their proprietary software, this has never been credibly quantified.

>>
>> You are being naive

>
> No, I?m being realistic. I seek evidence to disprove my point, and there is
> none. QED.
>
>> If you were a TV manufacturer, having to publish your source code for
>> your HD TVs GUI interface for your competitors to browse in advance of
>> its launch at the various consumer shows would be quite undesirable.

>
> The GPL requires that you only have to offer the source once the code has
> been published.


This is an important point, in this thread. The TV manufacturer can show off
his sets and get people all in a I Gota Have It state. It is only after the
code goes to a third party does the GPL say, you need to give the source
code if someone asks for it.

Now, think of the hype that Apple creates so well. They are leaders, no
doubt abot that. So it does get people wanting to buy the product.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
triumphs greeneyes Computer Support 30 02-16-2006 12:49 AM
GRLIB VHDL IP library available (GPL) Jiri Gaisler VHDL 2 10-18-2004 05:21 PM
[ANNOUNCEMENT] VTD-XML released under GPL Jimmy zhang Java 0 06-30-2004 07:23 AM
[ANNOUNCEMENT}: VTD-XML released under GPL Jimmy zhang Java 0 06-29-2004 03:36 AM
ATTN: Java Programmer Required for small GPL project Java 24 08-18-2003 08:20 PM



Advertisments