[theme-reviewers] GPL

[// ravi]

[not snipping original messages since this is a bit old and the extra context might help]

On Aug 13, 2012, at 1:34 AM, Bryan Hadaway <bhadaway at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not really sure what you're saying exactly, so I say this with the best intentions of what I believe that to be, but also talking about the issue in general. As best as I can tell, it appears that you're inferring that I've taken an anti-GPL or Public Domain Vs GPL stance on the discussion at hand, which isn't the case. Of course correct me if I'm wrong.
> 
> In any case I think I understand what you're trying to get at about possible risks with Public Domain, but honestly those same risks exist with any license (or no license). The bottom line is that we're not talking about anything tangible (I know, a whole other debate), code, and the attached user's rights, freedoms etc are all released in a "good faith" scenario and can all be exploited no matter how something is released, unless we get into copyright/notarized/patented territory.
> 
> Let's look at some black and white hypotheticals:
> 
> Example 1: Something is released into the Public Domain. Someone takes it, copyrights and licenses it and sales it as is. They then sue the original source and claim that they in fact stole it (copyright infringement) from their product.
> 
> Example 2: Something is released as a GPLed premium product. Someone takes it, publishes it as Public Domain. They then sue the original source and claim that they in fact stole it from their free project and turned it into a premium product fraudulently privatizing and selling something that cannot legally leave the Public Domain.
> 
> Before we get into a million different possibilities/angles/gotchas/yadda yadda, let me just say that in the US, anyone can sue anyone else for anything, and I mean anything. And further more it doesn't matter what the actual truth is. The law has nothing to do with the truth. It only has to do with what can be "proven" in the eyes of the court. I've had lawyers for clients and I've talked to dozens of lawyers/firms throughout my career, and they all confirm this. Often the only thing that matters, is who has more money, period. It's a very sad reality.
> 

Brian,

I agree that everyone cannot go around discovering copyright infringement, much less suing for such infringement. But at the same time, I would say that we cannot underestimate the power of the GPL. Red Hat for instance is currently using it against patent troll Twin Peaks. But also, giant corporations are passing their internal code through software like Black Duck to avoid future GPL liabilities. While exploitation of GPL-licensed code is likely in reality, the occasional safeguard it affords still puts it on firmer ground than other, more “liberal” open source licenses.


> So you feel safe releasing something as GPL? Why? And I mean that only in the sense of the worst case exploitation scenario that you brought up. Theoretically, we could think of all sorts of awful things that we should both be stressed about equally, regardless of how we release our code. If we're gonna put it under the microscope with that kind of "what if" filter, we're not going to feel safe.


My point was that GPL is less stressful than many other open source licenses because it provides that protection (of share-alike) for the community. My concern is primarily that the community continue to benefit from the things we create. With the GPL, if we find that entity X has taken the code and built something on top of it, we can attempt to force them to share those changes with us. Especially when entity X is a corporation (not some poor freelancer) this can be a powerful wedge. Nothing is certain in life, of course :-).


> But, that's the point of it all right? We don't want to be corporate, we don't want to copyright, trademark, patent the code we release. We want people to enjoy it, use it, change it etc.


Indeed. Hence the copy”left”. Yes?


> Because we want to be friendly, we expose ourselves to litigious people. That's the very nature of the beast, always has been.
> 
> When it really comes right down to it, it's just a preference, even if we both in addition release our code under no warranty clauses, it's all a deterrent, not foolproof. We have to do our best to conform to our own personal ethics and hope for the best, that people are generally good, naive as that is that's our pursuit.
> 
> For the record, I like GPL just fine. If I had any ethical (or otherwise) problem with it I wouldn't have ever used it to begin with, I would have simply avoided the official repo. I simply prefer Public Domain. I don't think it extinguishes vulnerability to exploitation, of course not. But, that doesn't mean that the GPL or any other license in a digital product are not open to the same exploitations, though differing circumstances.
> 
> If I completely misunderstood what you were trying to say please clarify. Either way, I think what I've said carries a lot of important, valid points. And yes, I'd love to read the article you wrote. Knowledge is power.


I think you have a fairly good idea of what I am saying, but I think we are coming at it from different angles (that is if I understand what you are saying :-)).

Here is Matt’s link to my post (my comment on the post has a link to my second post): http://ma.tt/2009/07/gpl-fud/.

Regards,

	—ravi