The economic incentive to violate the GPL | Hacker News Reader

The economic incentive to violate the GPL

mjg59.dreamwidth.org

43 pointschalst15 comments

So, what can be done about / learned from this?

Competitive advantage of secrets (standard anti-BSD argument)

The standard response is that maintaining a patchset is expensive. Do devices get frequent (and comprehensive) enough firmware updates for this to actually matter? I would assume this varies with the type of device.

Manufacturer is using binaries that they don't have source for

This could be recursive, or it could be that the binaries were obtained by questionable means. Are there other reasons (if so, those would probably apply to the final device manufacturer as well and so still be recursive)? I didn't see anything about (perceived) patent liability in the article, maybe companies fear that releasing source would invite suits from patent trolls? Are there more reasons?

Non-repeatable build process

If a proper process is actually cheaper, shouldn't companies that don't have one die out? Is this happening or not? Why?

> If a proper process is actually cheaper, shouldn't companies that don't have one die out? Is this happening or not? Why?

Is a proper process cheaper? Maybe it is directly, but requires hiring better programmers who cost more. Which of course has all sorts of benefits, but like the proper process itself, maybe that's only a win in the long term, so some companies don't do it. (Also many companies would like to hire good programmers, but don't know how to, and also don't know how to hire someone who knows how...)

So if one of your competitors paid for the SDK, you can just dump the binaries off their machine, flash them onto your own boards and save yourself a decent amount of money. You obviously don't get the source, and nor do you have the standing to insist that the vendor whose binaries you misappropriated give you the source.

I don't think this is correct. Since your competitor distributed the software to you (I assume you purchased the board), they are legally obligated to give you the source or stop distributing the product.

So legally, your competitor has only two choices: stop distributing the product or enforce their GPL rights against the vendor and then share the source with you.

What GPL rights? The GPL is a license, not a contract. If someone fails to grant you the rights it provides then your only recourse is a copyright infringement suit, and if you're not a copyright holder then you have no standing to enforce that.

How do you figure that? It's a license, which is a type of contract.

It grants you permissions above and beyond what you'd otherwise have and doesn't remove any existing rights, so my understanding is that you're offering no consideration to the licensor and so it's not a contract.

Yes, but if someone offers GPL licensed software to you, they themselves are in violation of the GPL if they don't cough up the source code. I don't see how I as an end user couldn't bring an action against an entity for violating the terms of the agreement.

It's not a contract, so you can't use contract law against them. You're not a copyright holder, so you can't use copyright law against them. What kind of action are you expecting?

Edited to add: I guess if they sold it to you as a GPLed work then you might have some recourse under advertising law, but even then I think you'd probably be limited to getting your money back - there's no way you can compel them to give you the source code.

You do however have legal recourse to ensure compliance (in the sense that you can demand they comply with their requirements under the license).

If you're out for blood, contact the copyright holder.

You can demand, but there are no circumstances under which they're obliged to comply. Even the copyright holder can't force that - the most they can do is win damages for infringement and prevent any further distribution.

Quite. There's what used to be an easy test for whether you were bound by a contract: did you make an agreement with someone, someone's agent, or a corporation's employee?

In the age of EULA's, that test isn't as clear as it was, but it is perfectly clear that you can come into possession of copyrighted material without any kind of contract. Copyright limits what you can do with your possessions without your explicit or tacit agreement.

Licenses can only grant freedoms. The GPL-style licenses seem to inhibit your freedom, but only because they offer a conditional freedom: you are granted the freedom to do this thing, but only if you also undertake to do that thing. All of this is without any agreement between the code author and the code user.

Now here's a test of whether that is all clear: is an End User License Agreement a license?

This "issue" with the GPL is ridiculous. "Complying with the law is annoying and expensive, why would anyone bother?"

Replace "GPL" with "OSHA" or "child labor laws" and the stupidity of this argument becomes readily apparent. You are licensed to use the software given certain conditions are met. You meet the conditions or you do not use the software. Gaining a competitive edge is no justification for breaking your contract.

Start a media streaming service that just pirates everything; non-compliance would be a huge advantage there.

The world is full of businesses who ignore legal requirements because they think the risk of prosecution is low and the benefits are worthwhile. Software isn't a special case. What's unusual in this case is that Google's happily making money off the companies breaking the law and doesn't seem to care.

But google does that all the time with adsense.

Surely in this scenario, Google is actively hurt?

You argue that, in the short term at least, these individual companies that are part of the Android Ecosystem can avoid costs but surely the ecosystem as a whole would produce more, better and cheaper phones if they could be forced to take the long term view.

I'm also not sure how many of the various reasons given are plausible given that HTC can and do release the source, but simply delay it for whatever reason.

Is compliance really not the norm amongst businesses that sign up with Google to ship the market etc.?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com