Hacker News Reader

Comment by DannyBee | Hacker News Reader

No, it's just a common misconception about the GPL, and it actually pops up on GPL violation lists, so i figured i'd take the time to point out it's not correct, and apparently start a large group of random replies about it.

I personally think the written offer approach should never have been added, but ...

View on HN

That written offer must accompany the physical product. Google did not do this as far as I know. I mean, if we are going to be technical about this, the GPL states that even if you distribute the code via a "network server", you still must provide, accompanying the physical product, a "written offer" (it's the same clause) to give the user said code via that path.

Really, all doe88's point was is that when Google sold this thing, they were already on the hook for this: he didn't even mention the "Internet" (your technicality), he just said "release", and providing a written offer in the box would have satisfied that. I don't even think doe88 was aggravated at Google: he seemed to just be pointing out that this isn't really news.

You are thinking of GPLv3, not GPLv2, when you speak of the network server distribution. :)

I can see you're trying to perform some kind of public service by splitting legal hairs about what is/is not required but by doing so you are actually hurting the interests of your employer.

By stating that Google is not required to provide the code as offered but only on written request you are very much going by the letter of the document and not by the reality of the situation, which is that by doing that you'd be putting up an unnecessary barrier.

So even if you are 100% on the ball in this thread you have still managed to score an own goal. When people use words like 'required' they don't mean this in the legal narrowest possible interpretation of the words, they mean as in morally obligated. You can then put on your IP lawyer hat and show how good you are at splitting hairs but consider that you are not just speaking for yourself here but for google as a whole by invoking them and appealing to authority in the way you do.

Own goal? You're the one who put the goalposts there.

He already said he thought they were morally required to release the code on the net. Also, what are you talking about?

He's a lawyer, it's his job to split hairs.

He's not trying to perform a public service. This is a thread demonstrably populated with whacked-out ideas of what the GPL says, he's a subject matter expert, and he's correcting them. He is performing a public service. You've been here long enough to see that, so I think you should start by acknowledging that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com