If the GPL V2 license is being violated without consequence (by Geniatech) then why have such a license in the first place? This may have an un-intened consequence of pushing less OSS into the public area. We may well end up with the situation where disclosure agreements must be signed first before ANY OSS is ever disclosed.
That's a good question, obviously the GPL must be enforced if it is to be effective. I suspect this is true for all copyrights. :) We would do well to avoid supporting any organization that shows disrespect for the law or even the spirit of the law. I like that and raise u having them write "We will not violate the terms and conditions of the GPL or any copyright.", on a blackboard 1,000 times.
Jessey Lawson AGPL kernel would require every web site to host a copy of the source. Not an ideal solution as compliance for normal usage is too difficult.
Interesting news. Think I'm kind of with you about the outcome, as the dude sounds like he might be a bit overzealous when it comes to what he thinks he might be entitled to. It's hard to defend either side as they both parties seem shady. Hopefully this doesn't scare anyone from trying to add to the community. I dont feel like it should, honestly. I think it had been the FSF going after them, though....that feeling would likely be different. Thanks for sharing this food for thought:)
Thanks for the comments! The advantage of GPL source code is that it makes it easier for companies to get their software projects going with readily available code. Hopefully they’ll keep coming back for more!
3:00 The reason GPL exits is *not* so everyone can afford using the software in terms of price! It's so it respects user *freedoms* and to keep the software *libre*
So why buy from companies that violate GPL licences. I think that is why he did this, knowing he couldn't win! :-) As it is McHardy, a developer should know this ! :- | To expose this companies wrong doing, sometimes big companies try to get away with things. Is he taking a bad hit, yes. Is he totally wrong, no. Did he fight dirty/wrongfully, ya, but now we know Geniatech is a company of little integrity toward the law of GPL product. So why should anyone or other business buy Geniatech products.
Several issues with the facts of this story. The GPL is a contract between those who give and those who receive. If a company is giving copies of GPL binaries they are required to make the "entire source code" used in creating those binaries available to those and only those who are given the binaries. Failure to do so is not like stealing it is stealing and against copy right law in many countries. This is the contract all GPL contributors are contributing under, any changes to this contract must be accepted by 100% of the contributors... even the guy who contributs a single word or letter has as much right to sue over the use of that contribution as any other. The company needs to make any changes to that parties work available to their customers and only those customers. There is not much difference here than any other license audit, Microsoft does these all the time for example. In GPL software companies are held to a higher standard because there are many parties involved, but that should not give any more or less leay way to following the law.
@@subscriber6181 That's impossible... If a developer works on GPL software they have essentially download and agreed to work under the GPL as basically a volunteer. So this statement is no more true than a Soup Kitchen stealing a chef's time.
@@cheako91155 It's more of the case that you find a recipe book and you decide to make a meal that uses components from both that book and your grandmother's. Because both components now make up a meal, the owner of the recipe book tells you to share your grandmother's recipe. This is essentially what the GPL is doing.
@@subscriber6181 If the book /a baker/ plagiarized is GPL. Then the baker has received a copy of the GPL and is bound to that liscanse "prior" to introducing extra elements. Nobody is forcing a baker to perform plagiarism.
![YoungBoy Never Broke Again - Missing Everything [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dTYeMZGzOzw/mqdefault.jpg)
![YoungBoy Never Broke Again - Catch Me [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/KxwEXXFQMTY/mqdefault.jpg)
If the GPL V2 license is being violated without consequence (by Geniatech) then why have such a license in the first place? This may have an un-intened consequence of pushing less OSS into the public area. We may well end up with the situation where disclosure agreements must be signed first before ANY OSS is ever disclosed.
Ray Palmer GPL is the only license that protects Linux from being gobbled up by companies like Google and Microsoft and no longer be a free OS.
That's a good question, obviously the GPL must be enforced if it is to be effective. I suspect this is true for all copyrights. :) We would do well to avoid supporting any organization that shows disrespect for the law or even the spirit of the law. I like that and raise u having them write "We will not violate the terms and conditions of the GPL or any copyright.", on a blackboard 1,000 times.
Jessey Lawson AGPL kernel would require every web site to host a copy of the source. Not an ideal solution as compliance for normal usage is too difficult.
@@Zandman26 GPL (and GNU) is trash
Interesting news. Think I'm kind of with you about the outcome, as the dude sounds like he might be a bit overzealous when it comes to what he thinks he might be entitled to. It's hard to defend either side as they both parties seem shady. Hopefully this doesn't scare anyone from trying to add to the community. I dont feel like it should, honestly. I think it had been the FSF going after them, though....that feeling would likely be different.
Thanks for sharing this food for thought:)
Thanks for the comments! The advantage of GPL source code is that it makes it easier for companies to get their software projects going with readily available code. Hopefully they’ll keep coming back for more!
3:00 The reason GPL exits is *not* so everyone can afford using the software in terms of price! It's so it respects user *freedoms* and to keep the software *libre*
Great video, interesting.
So why buy from companies that violate GPL licences. I think that is why he did this, knowing he couldn't win! :-) As it is McHardy, a developer should know this ! :- | To expose this companies wrong doing, sometimes big companies try to get away with things. Is he taking a bad hit, yes. Is he totally wrong, no. Did he fight dirty/wrongfully, ya, but now we know Geniatech is a company of little integrity toward the law of GPL product. So why should anyone or other business buy Geniatech products.
Even more than that, why use software that uses GPL.
You know they do the same thing when it comes to freedom of speech.
Nice video
hm
Several issues with the facts of this story. The GPL is a contract between those who give and those who receive. If a company is giving copies of GPL binaries they are required to make the "entire source code" used in creating those binaries available to those and only those who are given the binaries. Failure to do so is not like stealing it is stealing and against copy right law in many countries. This is the contract all GPL contributors are contributing under, any changes to this contract must be accepted by 100% of the contributors... even the guy who contributs a single word or letter has as much right to sue over the use of that contribution as any other. The company needs to make any changes to that parties work available to their customers and only those customers. There is not much difference here than any other license audit, Microsoft does these all the time for example. In GPL software companies are held to a higher standard because there are many parties involved, but that should not give any more or less leay way to following the law.
GPL is stealing developer's hard work.
@@subscriber6181 That's impossible... If a developer works on GPL software they have essentially download and agreed to work under the GPL as basically a volunteer. So this statement is no more true than a Soup Kitchen stealing a chef's time.
@@cheako91155 It's more of the case that you find a recipe book and you decide to make a meal that uses components from both that book and your grandmother's. Because both components now make up a meal, the owner of the recipe book tells you to share your grandmother's recipe. This is essentially what the GPL is doing.
@@subscriber6181 If the book /a baker/ plagiarized is GPL. Then the baker has received a copy of the GPL and is bound to that liscanse "prior" to introducing extra elements. Nobody is forcing a baker to perform plagiarism.
@@cheako91155 There was no "plagiarism" in the case I described. There were two separate items that were put together to make a meal.