Open source law firm sues over GPL violations
computerworlduk.com
computerworlduk.com
"You have to provide the source code, whether or not you modified the program," Williamson said. "Just distributing the program, even if you haven't made any changes yourself, you still have an obligation to provide the source code."
Sheesh. It's so important that an additional copy of the original source is published, that there needs to be a lawsuit over it.
I thought that the open-source movement was supposed to be about freeing information and code. But every day, it seems more and more like a passive-aggressive means of control.
Disclaimer: IANAL. That said, I think part of the reason to enforce cases like this is that if this clause in the license goes unenforced for long enough with the IP holders not suing, then it becomes an implicit rewriting of the "must provide source" part of the license, and then weakens any later legal case.
I agree, the provision to provide a tarball of source is silly. It probably made more sense in the days of semi-disconnected FTP sites before http and Google made everything so much more discoverable.
So it's not as if the FSF isn't trying to make things reasonable.
Why is that good? If someone ports busybox, or libc, or the compiler, or some other software to a new architecture / environment / ..., everyone gets that port / patch back for free. You're also more likely to get a stable custom firmware for that device once it's known what is running on the original box.
While the article doesn't quite make it explicit, it strongly implies that there are no modifications. It seems to be purely a question of providing an additional archive of the source.
You're also more likely to get a stable custom firmware for that device once it's known what is running on the original box
No more so than simply documenting what packages at what revisions were used. How does the source itself help? (Yes, I can think of edge cases, like the project goes away, but in such a case there's no one left to defend the licensing terms anyway)
companies used the software, so they should respect the license
Yes. There's no question that they should. The license is the license, they chose to use it, and they are now obligated to live by its terms. If they're not doing so, the court must penalize them. That's life in the real world.
My complaint is with the terms themselves, and the enforcement of them. First, I don't see how an additional archive somewhere out there, that no one is ever going to look at anyway. is of any benefit. Second, I don't see how a lawsuit to enforce this is of any benefit (yes, they have the right to do so, but that doesn't mean they're not jerks).
Of course, setting up a github fork for your company's branch of a project is relatively straightforward, and also solves such issues.