Hacker News Reader

Comment by LelouBil | Hacker News Reader

> You can not be forced to give out code.

Can you explain this in more detail ? I thought that was the case.

If you violate the license that allows you to use some code, and the license says that any violation terminates the license, then you are technically stealing the code by using it (basic copyright infringement). So you could be sued for that, in the same way you could be sued for using any code you aren't allowed to use. There would be damages awarded in fines, and maybe even prison time in theory.

As an extreme example, if I wrote a software license that makes you my lifelong slave for using my software, and you use it without becoming my slave, then no judge is going to enforce slavery upon you. But they might fine you for stealing my software.

> But they might fine you for stealing my software. I don't think it's that easy. ;)

No, you are not technically stealing; you are technically infringing copyright. I appreciate you put that in brackets, but it still isn't stealing (technically or otherwise).

You are totally right, I was trying to ELI5 my language but ended up taking it too far.

In “Intelectual property and open source” an alternative interpretation of GPL is given as a contract due to way it is written. So the code company is shipping along with GPL can be looked as violation if I understood that correctly. This is the stick which makes Qt business model with LGPL to work.

IANAL but i suspect the slave thing would be void but otherwise the license would still stand. Otherwise people could bury ridiculous clauses in licenses to trick people into not really having a license.

The difference is that I don't think you're able to sell yourself into slavery so that contract is void.

The judge would not order to release the code, but John Deere could likely avoid paying (most of) the fine it they instead decided to release the source code.

Which wouldn't help much if they keep their hardware encrypted and locked, de facto preventing users from checking that the hardware actually runs the released code, therefore giving no guarantees against planned obsolescence and other tricks.

That's not the purpose of the GPLv2. If JD published their source code they would fulfill all the obligations of the license. Doesn't matter if their hardware is locked down.

That is a misconception, the GPLv2 also provides users the right to modify, rebuild and reinstall software on their devices.

https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/mar/25/install-gplv2/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-t...

However, with both GPLv2 and GPLv3, a vendor of an aggregation of copyleft and proprietary software can legally cause the the proprietary software to stop working when the copyleft software is modified. I think this hasn't been tested in court though, but the license as they are written both allow this. This would essentially brick your car/tractor until you rewrote that proprietary software from scratch.

https://events19.linuxfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017...

Pretty much only 3 things can happen if you violate someone's software copyright and are sued for it.

- You could have to stop violating the person's copyright.

- You could have to pay damages

- You could have to go to jail

Example: Lets say Lindows is a piece of software whose license only lets you distribute it in Louisiana. If you start distributing it in California and get sued you don't have to do something like transport all your clients to Louisiana and distribute the software to them a second time. You just will be prevented from doing any further distribution in California.

A 4th option is to reach a settlement with the author agreeing to something else in lieu of the statutory punishments. This has been used to get source code released and bring the infringer into compliance.

Don't you still have to pay damages and maybe you have to do the time

> maybe you have to do the time

The only time anyone ever "do[es] time" is in criminal matters. Copyright infringement is a civil matter, and, in general, the only remedy the courts can provide is monetary. However, refusing to abide by the courts' orders can land you in contempt of court, which could (won't always) involve jail.

My understanding is that in the United States of America copyright law is bith a matter of civil law and criminal law, as the tragic case of mr Aaron Swartz, that was threatened with fines of up to $100k & 10 years of jail for each copyright infringement violation.

I do believe that the US law is Draconian, but you can't say "oh Swartz! yeah just a guy, let's bully him to oblivion with hundreds of years of jail time and million on fines" while at the same time say "Oh John Deere, that's a corporation, please follow the licensing of the software you use". It doesn't seem right to me.

I'm not a lawyer, but isn't that what "Specific performance" is?

"Specific performance is an equitable remedy in the law of contract, whereby a court issues an order requiring a party to perform a specific act, such as to complete performance of the contract."[1]

I understand that you are saying that it does not apply in copyright case, but why?

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_performance

Seems like they can also pay damages and stop distribution of the product until it the infringement is removed, although in prior cases GPL often has been complied with in settlements

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_license_litigati...

They may be forced to pay a fine to the authors / court / customers and release a version without the infringement for example.

The court will force you to come back into compliance with the license. The GPL says that if you distribute binaries, you must distribute source. There are two different ways to comply with that. You can start distributing source, but you can also stop distributing binaries.

Yeah that was my impression too. Or are all these open source licenses essentially toilet paper?

The point is that you don't have a right to distribute the software unless you give out source code. However, that doesn't mean that a court can you force you to give out the source code - they are far more likely to force you to stop distribution altogether, and pay damages for whatever occurred.

Whether any company in it's right mind would find it preferable to settle the case by abiding by the terms of the license or not is debatable of course.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com