The kernel community confronts GPL enforcement

Re:The kernel community confronts GPL enforcement by karma_vaccum123 on Thursday September 01, 2016 @12:01PM (#12406375)

> Enforcement of the license people agreed to will cause people to avoid using the license?

If it means lawsuits, yes. Companies will either seek out a non-GPL solution, or they will be even more secretive about their use of linux. Either way, linux loses and 95% of linux users lose....and the violations will continue anyway.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The kernel community confronts GPL enforcement by st3v3r on Thursday September 01, 2016 @01:27PM (#12407200)

So unless we let companies break the law, they won't give us jobs?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The kernel community confronts GPL enforcement by Karunamon on Thursday September 01, 2016 @01:08PM (#12407012)

...or they could comply with the license they agreed to in the first place.

You've created a catch 22 here.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The kernel community confronts GPL enforcement by karma_vaccum123 on Thursday September 01, 2016 @01:25PM (#12407184)

There is no catch 22. You simply have to figure out what the goals actually are. Linus' goal is to have a vibrant community that has access to the changes he approves in the kernel. The FSF's goal is to eradicate non-free software.

Linus doesn't care about the odd scofflaw because they don't interfere with his goal. The FSF on the other hand cannot abide scofflaws because their only goal is to eliminate them.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The kernel community confronts GPL enforcement by Karunamon on Thursday September 01, 2016 @01:49PM (#12407391)

And yet at the end of the day, Linus chose a license that demands its users release any changes they distribute, rather than a permissive license like the BSDs.

Linus probably doesn't care about the odd scofflaw because he has better things to do (like maintain a kernel) than to juggle lawsuits.

This is why the SF Conservancy exists.

[ Parent | on HN ]